Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASHRIDGE (BONAR LAW MEMORIAL) TRUST BILL (by Order)

BEDFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION) BILL (by Order)

BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (by Order)

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (by Order)

CREWE CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS BILL (by Order)

KENT WATER BILL (by Order)

LUTON CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

RHODESIAN SELECTION TRUST LIMITED AND ASSOCIATED COMPANIES BILL (by Order)

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

WANKIE COLLIERY BILL (by Order)

WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL (by Order)

WESLEYAN AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL (by Order)

WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Industrial Development (Cairncross Report)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he continues in his refusal to implement the recommendations of the Cairncross Report.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. and learned Member's Question on 27th October.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman lodging an objection to my Question? Does he realise that the leading economists, sociologists and newspapers in Scotland praised the Cairncross Report? Does he not deem it worth another glance in order to do something constructive for Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: We are always examining this question. I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the reply of my right hon. Friend, who said that the present policy which we are pursuing is sufficiently flexible to deal appropriately with the many varying situations which arise. That is true.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend aware that the reasons for the rejection of the Cairncross Report have given rise to considerable apprehension in Scotland? The Secretary of State suggested in his rejection that the policy suggested by the Cairncross Committee of developing industry in other parts of the country would automatically exclude the Development Area policy? Most people in Scotland see nothing mutually exclusive about the two proposals.

Mr. Stewart: It is a very difficult question. We have examined it with the greatest care, and our view at the moment is as stated.

Mr. Brooman-White: Does not my hon. Friend think that the trends indicated by the latest figures of development give grounds for active consideration?

Mr. Stewart: I assure my hon. Friend that our mind is not closed to any development, but we are not yet persuaded that this change would be wise.

Fishing Vessels (Grants)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for grants under the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, have been refused by him on the ground that the applicants were unable to comply with paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, respectively, of the schemes made by him under that Act last July in so far as they relate to Scotland.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The granting or refusal of applications rests with the Herring Industry Board and White Fish Authority and not with my right hon. Friend. I am informed that the Board have rejected applications from Scottish fishermen for four boats and one engine on the grounds referred to by the hon. and learned Member. The Authority have rejected one application for an engine on these grounds.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that these paragraphs press hardly on poor applicants? Will he consider amending the regulations in order to give poor applicants a better show?

Mr. Stewart: It would be very difficult quickly to amend the regulations. I assure the hon. and learned Member that the greatest sympathy is shown to these people, but the authorities must be sure that the man to whom they lend money is (a) a good fisherman and (b) able financially to carry the burden.

Transport Costs

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland is he is aware of the threat of loss and damage to the fishing and agricultural industries in the North of Scotland caused by the existing high freight charges and by the proposed increase in freight charges for the pro ducts of these industries; and what steps he proposes to protect these industries from such loss and damage.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given to the hon. Lady, the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) on 26th January.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not realise that an application is imminent to increase the freight charges, although existing freight rates already press very heavily on the North-East of Scotland, and that the discrimination is very unfair? Will he take steps to oppose the application?

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Minister of Transport is at present considering a report of the Transport Tribunal on the British Transport Commission's proposal, and the Secretary of State for Scotland is in constant touch with the Minister of Transport.

Lady Tweedsmuir: What progress is being made in the conversations between the fishing industry and the British Transport Commission on the freight charges?

Mr. Stewart: I am sorry that I cannot tell my hon. Friend that. The discussions are going on. They are somewhat detailed, but we do not yet know what is happening.

Potato Harvesting (Children)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are taken to ensure that farmers do not employ in potato gathering children under 13 years of age, especially when those schools, normally supplying the labour, are having their short mid-term autumn holiday.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: It is one of the normal duties of the police to prevent contravention of the law relating to the employment of children. I have no information which would suggest that they are not alert to this duty when schools are closed for mid-term holidays.

Mr. Hamilton: Has no case at all been brought to the notice of the Minister that this practice is in existence in Scotland, particularly at half-term holidays, when the older children are away from school? What additional steps and supervision is the Minister contemplating to obviate this reprehensible practice?

Mr. Stewart: In addition to what I said just now about the duties of the police, the Director of Education for Fife tells us that one of the duties of his school attendance officers is to report to the


police any infringement of the law. The hon. Gentleman can feel that this is reasonably well covered.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Would not the Minister agree that the only way to prevent these things is to abolish altogether child labour in the potato fields? Is he aware that there are well-known farmers who engage in most efficient potato production without the use of child labour?

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of children who worked at potato harvesting in 1953 from junior secondary, senior secondary and fee-paying schools, from Glasgow and Lanarkshire, respectively.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: 1,799 Glasgow children went from junior secondary schools, 422 from senior secondary schools and none from fee-paying schools. 1,953 Lanarkshire children went from junior secondary schools, and 272 from senior secondary schools. No children attending Lanarkshire fee-paying schools are of the age to work at the potato harvest.

Mr. Carmichael: As this Bill comes up annually, will the Minister take note of those figures? He will discover that the great majority of the children came from the poorer districts of Glasgow and Lanarkshire, who are the children who should have the opportunity of a better education? If children are needed for harvesting, will he go to the fee paying schools, where the children are much healthier and more capable of doing the job than are the poor children of 13 years of age in working-class districts?

Hearing Aids, Fife (Expenses)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children from Fife attend the hearing-aid clinic at Edinburgh; and what provision is made for the parents to recover the expense incurred by such visits.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): Thirty-two children of school age from Fife have attended the hearing aid clinic in Edinburgh since January, 1949. The parent or guardian of a child may apply to the National Assistance Board for assistance in paying fares to and from the clinic where any question of hardship arises; application forms are available at the clinic.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that many parents, although they suffer quite considerable hardship in going to and from Edinburgh, are very loath to apply to the National Assistance Board? Would he not agree that this is a very expensive and inconvenient method of catering for the needs of deaf children, and would he not consider setting up a small clinic north of the Forth, in view of the very inadequate transport?

Commander Galbraith: No, Sir, not in the meantime. A certain amount of skill is involved in testing and fitting the hearing aids; and the journey should not be necessary except on very few occasions. I do not think people should be bashful about applying to the National Assistance Board.

Mr. Rankin: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says "Not in the meantime," what time does he mean?

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see.

Police Inquiries (Political Activities)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific instructions have been given to the police concerning their investigations into the political convictions of any individual; on what date the most recent instructions were given on this matter; and how often such instructions have been modified in the last two years.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The police do not act on my right hon. Friend's instructions. In any case, it is not their function to investigate the political convictions of individuals.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Question was not raised out of any kind of hostility to the police, who are doing a very excellent job, but would he not agree that some procedure ought to be laid down on what the police should not do in their attempts to get information which they may legitimately require? Would he not urge on his right hon. Friend the need to stress the importance of not embarrassing individuals by this questioning?

Mr. Stewart: As I said to the hon. Gentleman a fortnight ago, if he has any


evidence of any case at all to substantiate the complaint he is making, we shall be glad to look at it.

Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend that in this case no agents provocateurs are appointed for the purpose of inciting people to commit crimes and afterwards decorate them for the foul villainy done, as in a recent case?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has no right whatever to make that charge. It is not true.

Monkland Canal, Coatbridge

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take on the representations which he has received from the town council of Coatbridge in respect of the dangers of the Monkland Canal.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: When conclusions have been reached on a similar problem concerning the Monkland Canal in Glasgow, about which my right hon. Friend replied on 2nd February to a Question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), my right hon. Friend will consider whether there is any action that can usefully be taken to deal with the Coatbridge position.

Mrs. Mann: This is an astonishing reply. Coatbridge made representations years before Glasgow, and its corporation has been waiting for nine years for satisfaction in regard to the canal, which is not only a danger to life but is a breeding ground for mosquitoes and is filling the houses around with rats. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the patience of Coatbridge and of its M.P. is exhausted?

Mr. Stewart: I am sorry about that, but I think the hon. Lady would agree that the problems which arise are not dissimilar and that a solution in one case might point to the solution of the other. We are pressing on with Glasgow.

Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the previous occasions Coatbridge got lost in the same kind of reply and that Coatbridge wants its own definite conclusions reached in case, as in former years, Lanarkshire and Glasgow may disagree?

Agents Provocateurs (Letter)

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has sent to the letter he has received from the Scottish National Congress regarding agents provocateurs in Scotland.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend has received a letter in similar terms to the circular letter to which he referred in reply to a Question asked on 2nd February by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). The letter has been acknowledged.

Mr. Carmichael: That letter was sent more than a month ago. This is a very important matter concerning a very important body in Scotland. Because of the statement that was made about that letter, the same statement was made by counsel in the High Court in Edinburgh about agents provocateurs. I ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether we are not entitled to some kind of reply. The Minister has said today that no such position exists with the police in Scotland. He should answer the question quite definitely.

Mr. Stewart: The letter of 28th January to which I think the hon. Gentleman refers was sent to my right hon. Friend. There was no signature; merely a rubber stamp for a signature. It contained a copy of a resolution. The answer given was that the terms of the resolution had be noted. I do not know what more my right hon. Friend could have done.

Sir W. Darling: If this species exists in Scotland, can my hon. Friend tell us the Scottish equivalent of "agents provocateurs"?

Slaughterhouses (Sitings)

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the Inter-Departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses (Scotland) before submitting their final report, to base their consideration of the siting of slaughter houses on the assumption that slaughtering will be done in the producing areas and that meat will be sent to consuming areas in carcase form.

Commander Galbraith: No, Sir. As one of the terms of reference of the Committee is to advise my right hon. Friend on the general principles of siting slaughterhouses, he can hardly instruct them on the matter.

Captain Duncan: Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the farmers of Scotland may well produce a meat marketing scheme which might involve local slaughtering, in which case they would want the slaughtering facilities to be made available entirely by the local authorities? If the Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend is only going to report on the slaughtering facilities where ever they may be, and not where they are wanted, it will be a most unsatisfactory report.

Commander Galbraith: The organisations have submitted evidence to the Committee and have made representations on the general siting of the slaughterhouses, some being in favour of the slaughterhouses being sited in the producing areas, and others in favour of their being located in the consuming areas, but the Committee have not yet come to a conclusion on these matters.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Minister assure the House that all these slaughterhouses will be equipped with the most modern slaughtering bays?

Commander Galbraith: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would take that as accepted.

Salmon Poaching

Mr. Pryde: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many convictions for salmon poaching have been registered under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951, and what amount of money has been levied in fines.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: From 10th May, 1951, when the Act was passed, to 31st December last, there were 188 convictions of poaching and 307 convictions of other offences under it. Fines totalling £1,128 were imposed in 167 poaching cases, and fines totalling £1,947 in 254 other cases. Some cases in each class were disposed of otherwise.

Mr. Pryde: Is the Minister aware of the ugly feeling engendered on Tweed-side as a result of the savage sentences imposed? Is he further aware that I have here evidence from a man who, found in possession of a cleek and stick on the public highway, was fined £8 as

a first offence; also that one of my constituents says that he was convicted at the Selkirk Sheriff Court on the evidence of a water bailiff, who contended that he saw him—at a distance of 500 yards, on a dark night and round a bend in the river—hiding salmon in a marsh which only existed in the imagination of the water bailiff? Will the Minister advise the Lord Advocate that it is now time to make an inquiry into the working of this Act in Scotland? Is he further aware that on 26th March next an attempt will be made in this House to fasten a replica of this Act on the English and Welsh anglers?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: The Question was so long that there was no time for an answer.

Mr. Manuel: Do I take it from your remark, Mr. Speaker, that if a supplementary question is too long, it debars the Minister on the Government Front Bench from replying?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the answer would involve an equally long speech.

Mr. Pryde: Due to the treatment that this Question has received, I intend to raise the matter again at the earliest possible opportunity.

Meat Transport Vehicles (Hygiene)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase the number of hygienic insulated vans for the transport of meat in Scotland
Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has no power to enforce a greater use of insulated vehicles in meat transport. He is, however, considering with the Minister of Food regulations to improve generally the hygienic standards of meat transport.

Mr. Thomson: Could the Minister say whether his Department has made any representations on this subject to the licensing tribunal?

Commander Galbraith: That is a matter for the Minister of Transport. Perhaps the hon. Member would put down a Question on the Order Paper.

Hydro-Electric Schemes (Costs)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to scrutinise, and to publish as necessary the results of his scrutiny, the respective sums authorised by Parliament for each and every constructional scheme promoted and completed by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, since 1946, and the respective sums actually expended by the Board for each and every constructional scheme; and what is the aggregate disparity between Estimates authorised by Parliament and actual costs since 1946.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The consent of my right hon. Friend is required to the borrowing by the Board of the sums needed to carry out its constructional schemes, and he is therefore in a position to consider the difference between these sums and the estimated costs given in the schemes presented to Parliament. In the case of the six completed hydro-electric schemes, estimated between 1944 and 1947 to cost £12,060,000, the sanctioned borrowing amounts to £27,825,600. In the case of seven transmission line schemes, estimated between 1947 and 1951 to cost £4,040,000, the sanctioned borrowing amounts to £4,714,870.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend institute some reasonable machinery for publishing, either in the Official Report or elsewhere, the disparity that now regularly exists between the sums authorised by this House for these very expensive schemes and the ultimate cost to the taxpayers?

Highland Railways (Electrification)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to support the policy and endeavours of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to electrify appropriate Highlands railway routes.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: This is a matter for the British Transport Commission, with whom I understand the Board have had discussions.

Mr. Nabarro: As the Secretary of State for Scotland is now assuming statutory responsibility for all electricity matters in Scotland, would it not be reasonable for

him to support the plea of the Chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, who so urgently wants to see these Highland railways electrified? Incidentally, so do I.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Nabarro: May I have an answer?

Mr. Stewart: The only answer I can give to my hon. Friend is that the British Transport Commission themselves do not consider that the electrification of these lines would be warranted.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. May we be told, Mr. Speaker, how long a supplementary question should be before it is considered too long?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members should be their own judges in this matter. I would ask the House to assist me to get on with the Questions, remembering that there are other hon. Members in the House and that we must not monopolise all the time.

Hydro-Electric Boards (Fixed Assets)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the respective values of the fixed assets of each of the South-West, the South-East, and North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Boards, expressed as an aggregate of all generation transmission andother ancillary electricity fixed assets, at the latest convenient date; and what would have been the value of the fixed assets of a single Scottish authority for electricity generation, transmission and sales, upon the date concerned.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: As this is a long answer, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the information:

The net value of the fixed assets of the South-East Scotland and South-West Scotland Electricity Boards at 31st March, 1953, totalled £9,210,028 and £15,057,691, respectively. These figures do not, of course, take account of the fixed assets of the British Electricity Authority in the South of Scotland. The net value of the fixed assets of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board at 31st December, 1952, was £78,318,654. It is estimated that the net value of all the fixed assets concerned in the whole of Scotland at this period was about £130 million.

Western Heritable Investment Company

Mr. Mclnnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that by keeping untenanted a large number of houses in Glasgow the Western Heritable Investment Company are in breach of the provisions of the statute under which the houses were built with the aid of subsidy from public funds; and what representations he has received from the Glasgow Corporation requesting him to discontinue the subsidy payments.
Commander Galbraith: So far as the first part of the Question is concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on Tuesday, 17th November. The answer to the second part is "None."

Mr. Mclnnes: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this company is now seeking to let these houses at an increased rental which contains an element of the purchase price? This is contrary to the Rent Restriction Acts and, since Exchequer money is involved, will he take action in the matter?

Commander Galbraith: I have no official information in reference to that matter.

Peel Hospital (Canteen Facilities)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to complaints from out-patients at Peel Hospital with regard to canteen facilities; and what his Department will do to assist the board of management in this matter.

Commander Galbraith: I have written to my hon. and gallant Friend concerning a complaint he brought to my notice about the distance of the canteen from the out-patient department. It would be difficult to re-site the canteen, but I have no doubt that the board of management will consider what improvements are practicable.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that this canteen is nearly 300 yards away? That is a long way for ill people to walk for a cup of tea. Will not my right hon. and gallant Friend try to assist the board of management to remedy this state of affairs?

Commander Galbraith: We have also to bear in mind the cost.

Netting of Rabbits (Caldra System)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a further statement regarding the Caldra system of netting rabbits.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): Bad weather unfortunately prevented Sir Eric de la Rue from giving officials apractical demonstration of his method of netting rabbits. He did, however, show them how his equipment is used, and they have reported to my right hon. Friend that the Caldra method would be effective on suitable ground. My right hon. Friend is grateful to Sir Eric for his enterprise, and the Department of Agriculture will do what they can to publicise his technique.

Coronary Thrombosis

Mr. Hubbard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland; the number of deaths from coronary thrombosis in Scotland for 1951, 1952 and 1953.

Commander Galbraith: There were 7,421 deaths from coronary thrombosis in 1951 and 7,738 in 1952. The provisional figure for 1953 is 7.566.

Mr. Hubbard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase there has been in the sums available for research in coronary thrombosis in Scotland in 1953.

Commander Galbraith: Since I replied to the hon. Member on this subject last June, grants have been authorised for three further projects endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Medical Research in Scotland, at a total cost of £8,090. No project in this field endorsed by the Committee has been impeded by lack of finance

Doctors Lists (Partnerships)

Mr. Hubbard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that, where medical practitioners work in partnership, patients may enter the name of one of the partners as their doctor for National Health Service purposes; that this partner may thus accumulate more names on his register than is provided for in the regulations, although the patients are aware that they may be attended to by another partner; and if he will take the necessary action to ensure that no


physician in partnership with colleagues is refused payment in such circumstances.

Commander Galbraith: A doctor in a partnership has certain personal obligations to patients on his own list. By limiting the size of that list the regulations seek to prevent the acceptance of patients towards whom these obligations could not in practice be discharged. The present arrangements have been settled in agreement with the representatives of the profession, and I see no reason to alter them.

Mr. Hubbard: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that one of the evil effects of this arrangement is that doctors who may wish to take assistants into partnership hold back, because, under the existing arrangements, they would have to canvass their patients in order to have them transferred to the name of the new partner? Many men who might well have become partners are consequently still assistants.

Commander Galbraith: The arrangements allow a doctor to have 4,500 patients on his list so long as the average throughout the practice is 3,500. I do not see how a doctor can reasonably be expected to look after more than 4,500 patients.

Mr. Hubbard: That is not the point of the Question. Where a doctor has an assistant the number of patients is divided equally between the doctor and his assistant, but when he promotes the assistant to be a partner there is a new arrangement and, unlessthe patients nominate the partner, the doctor does not find the patients equally allocated between himself and the assistant. For that reason we require an alteration in the regulations, so that some encouragement is given to doctors to promote their assistants to be partners.

Meat Marketing Board

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage the formation of a meat marketing board.

Mr. Snadden: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 17 of the White Paper on Decontrol of Food and Marketing of Agricultural Produce. The Government's plan leaves scope for a producers' marketing board for meat.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Joint Undersecretary aware that it was this paragraph that I had in mind? As this matter isof great importance to the agricultural industry in the North of Scotland, will he assure us that the Government are taking steps to see that this matter is pushed on and is not held up by possible delays south of the border?

Mr. Snadden: There is sometimes a little confusion on this point. It is for the producers to produce a scheme. It is not for the Government to take the first step. It is not up to the agricultural Ministers to encourage the production of marketing schemes.

Sir D. Robertson: Does my hon. Friend consider it feasible for any marketing organisation to succeed unless provision is made to deal with the glut at the end of the summer grass season by chilling and by freezing?

Mr. Snadden: That is a separate question.

Lower Kilvaxter-Bornisketaig Road

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the unsatisfactory condition of the road from Lower Kilvaxter to Bornisketaig, he will take action for the early improvement of this road.

Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend is aware of the condition of this road, and he is considering what steps can be taken to improve it.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that this road has been in a bad condition for 20 years and that its condition now scarcely permits it to be called by the name of "road"? Can he not pay special attention to it?

Mr. Snadden: We are giving sympathetic consideration to the proposal.

Dog-fish and Basking Sharks

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for experiments in the catching and processing of dog-fish and basking sharks for the production of oil and other products.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The commercial possibilities of this fishery have already been discussed with the White


Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, and my right hon. Friend will ask them to consider, in the light of further information now being sought, what action, if any, should be taken.

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that reply. May I ask if the Minister will draw the attention of the White Fish Authority to the fact that great quantities of basking sharks and dog-fish are caught by Norwegians round Shetland? There appears to be an insatiable market among the voracious public in Londonfor dog-fish under different names. Apart from the production of oil, there is the possibility of human food becoming available if the Authority will help.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

Teachers' Salaries

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the highest salary paid to headmasters in Lanarkshire, with or without special allowances, and the minimum; and the highest in operation in Glasgow, with or without special allowances, and the minimum.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In both areas the salaries paid by education authorities are governed by the Salaries Regulations, under which the salary varies according to the size and nature of the school. In effect, the maximum payable to a teacher who is at the top of the basic scale is £1,625 and the minimum £805. In Lanarkshire the highest salary paid is £1625 and the lowest £789, which is paid to a headmaster not yet at the top of his scale. In Glasgow, one headmaster has been excepted from the Regulations on the application of the education authority and receives a salary of £1,750. The lowest salary paid in Glasgow is £952.

26. Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received against the provisions of the Draft Regulations on Teachers' Salaries.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Representations may be made up to 18th February, and on past experience the bulk of them will be received between now and that date. It is therefore too soon to assess the position. So far 279 representations have

been received, 226 of which are printed postcards issued by the Glasgow Local Association of the Educational Institute of Scotland. The main points are that the increases in the basic scales are inadequate, that there should also be increases in responsibility payments, and that the changes proposed in the scales for women and male technical teachers with a view to reducing anomalies should not be made.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that there is very great ill-feeling in Scotland over the proposals contained in these Draft Regulations? Is he also aware that there is a very strong feeling that the provisions of these Regulations are meant to boost up the action previously taken by the Government in lowering the entrance qualification for women teachers, which will lead to a further deterioration in the proportion of graduate to non-graduate teachers in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. If the hon. Lady will wait until we have received all the representations, when we can make a statement, she will see that there are really no grounds for the suggestions which she has made.

Sir T. Moore: Does not my hon. Friend—and, no doubt, the hon. Lady, as a teacher—agree that the record of the late Government in regard to the question of teachers' salaries was truly lamentable in their six years of office, especially compared with the approach made by the present Government?

Technical College Staff, Glasgow (Family Allowances)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will arrange for the teaching staff at the Royal Technical College, Glasgow, to be awarded family allowances on the same scales as teaching staff of Glasgow University.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: No, Sir. Family allowances are not paid to the staffs of any educational establishments other than universities, but account of this is taken in the salary scales paid in degree departments at the Royal Technical College, which are slightly higher than at Glasgow University.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that the slightly higher salaries which are paid in the degree departments are attributable to the extra evening work done? Will he not have another look at this and make sure that technological education, which is so important, gets full university status in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I agree that a high place should be given to technological education, but the £50 increase also took account of the fact that these teachers did not get a family allowance.

University Bursaries (Adult Students)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will establish a number of State scholarships, available at Scottish universities, for adult students attending adult education classes.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: No, Sir. As recommended by the AdvisoryCouncil on Education in Scotland, responsibility for the award of bursaries in Scotland rests with education authorities, who have power to make awards to adult students attending universities.

Mr. Thomson: Would not the Minister agree that the awarding of scholarships for adult students is a rather special case and that the treatment of this class of student varies a great deal between local authorities? Would he not agree that the Government might give a lead to local authorities on this matter?

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that this Question of establishing State scholarships in Scotland, as in England, has been more than once considered by all those responsible, and the view has always been that the existing provisions in Scotland should stand.

New Schools

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many plans submitted by Glasgow Corporation to the Scottish Education Department for the construction of new schools since October, 1951 have not been approved, and what is the amount of the abortive expenditure incurred in consequence; and what is the normal time taken in other cases from the date of submission of plans until final approval.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: All the plans except four submitted last week have been approved and there has therefore been no abortive expenditure, but in four cases plans had to be returned for revision before final approval could be given. Plans are now normally approved within six to eight weeks of their submission.

Mr. Mclnnes: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that it is a simple matter to reduce the period of approval, and that what is at present being given is merely qualified approval? I have here several examples of plans approved subject to a reduction of £15,000; plans approved subject to a reduction of £150 per place; plans approved subject to a reduction of £3 4s. to £3 6s. Construction, obviously, cannot proceed on plans approved on that basis, and is it not about time that a working party or something of that nature were set up by the Department and the local authority?

Mr. Stewart: I quite see the hon. Member's point, but it is exactly in order to deal with these matters of day-to-day administration that, as a first example, we established a working party between officials of the Department and Glasgow Corporation some little time ago.

School Places

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many school places were provided from November to October in the years 1950–51, 1951–52 and 1952–53.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Returns are made quarterly, and I am accordingly giving figures for years running from 1st October to 30th September. The number of places provided was 16,000 in 1950–51, 14,995 in 1951–52, and 20,076 in 1952–53.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

National Service Men

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if, in view of the disturbance caused in the lives of young men who are conscripted intothe Forces, he will consider making a special grant of £100 after two years' service in addition to any moneys of which they may at present be in receipt; and £50 per year for every year of service thereafter to include both conscripts and volunteers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): No, Sir.

Mr. Craddock: Does the Minister think we are doing enough for these Servicemen? Does he not realise that these men are taken from their homes at the formative period of their lives in order that they may join the Services? Surely he agrees with me that we are getting National Service on the cheap unless we are prepared to recognise what these men do by way of protecting the State and are prepared to give them this compensation for the disturbance caused in their lives?

Mr. Birch: The hon. Member will realise that it would be very expensive, costing over £16 million, and would also throw out of gear the whole system of terminal grants to men with long service. National Servicemen enjoy rights of reinstatement in employment and also are granted paid terminal leave in order to give them a chance to get back into employment.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will my hon. Friend not agree that to the average young man and his family in this country it is a matter of great pride to be allowed to serve?

Mr. Craddick: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

.Mr. George Craddock: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence how many National Service men have been court-martialled during the past three years.

Mr. Birch: I regret that the answer to the hon. Member's Question could not be ascertained without undue labour, since the statistics kept by the Army do not distinguish between National Service men and other soldiers. In the Royal Navy and Royal Marines six, and in the R.A.F. 317, National Service men were convicted by court-martial during the past three years.

Homosexuality

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether men are retained in the Services after it is discovered that they are homosexuals.

Mr. Birch: Men convicted of serious offences involving homosexuality are almost invariably dismissed as part of the sentence of the court, but the term "homosexuality" covers various degrees of perversion and it would not be right to treat all cases in the same way.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I should still like an answer to this question: what is the policy of the Service Departments towards retaining in the Services men who are known to be homosexuals but who have not been convicted of any charge under that heading?

Mr. Birch: It is always open to the Services, if they think it right, to discharge a man administratively. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is interested in the subject, I recommend him to read Annex No. 36 to the Report of the Select Committee on the Army Act and the Air Force Act, where he will see the policy of the Services very fully set out.

Mr. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman make available to the Army and the Air Force the same code as is set out in the Admiralty Fleet Order dealing with this matter, which is a most sensible document?

Mr. Birch: As I understand it, the practice of the three Services in this matter is practically identical.

N.A.A.F.I. Sales (Withdrawn Publications)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence how many copies of the books entitled "Accused," "Persian Pride," "Amok," "Vengeance," "Killer," "Pursuit and Auction" by the so-called Hank Janson have been distributed by Government representatives to members of the Armed Forces, and in what circumstances; and whether he will give instructions for the distribution of these books to cease.

Mr. Birch: None of the books in the hon. Baronet's list has been distributed to the Forces through Service channels, but a small quantity of the books was purchased by N.A.A.F.I. All unsold copies of the seven books in question have been withdrawn.

Troops, Egypt (Absence without Leave)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence how many members of Her Majesty's Forces in Egypt have disappeared from their unite and have subsequently been traced to Paris.

Mr. Birch: One, Sir.

Hertford British Hospital, Paris

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what financial arrangements have been made for taking over the Hertford British Hospital in Paris for the use of British Service personnel.

Mr. Birch: Negotiations with the hospital committee of management are nearing completion. It is proposed that, towards an estimated cost of£100,000 for putting the hospital in order, the committee will contribute £20,000. Certain beds will still be available for British civilians living in Paris.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would it not have been cheaper for the public funds if Sir Bernard Docker's offer to keep this hospital going had been accepted in the first instance? Would not that have made it very much less costly to the Service Departments to obtain the necessary bed accommodation which is now being sought?

Mr. Birch: Sir Bernard Docker's financial affairs are not the concern of my noble Friend, and I cannot answer that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Shrewsbury Depot (Dismissed Employee)

Mr. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the circumstances in the case of Mr. G. T. Wills of Harlescott Depot, Shrewsbury, which have now been made known to him by hon. Members of this House who are members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, he is prepared to re-engage this man in the service of his Department.

Mr. Albu: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has noted the remarks of the Recorder in the case of Mr. G. T. Wills of Harlescott Depot,

Shrewsbury; and whether he is prepared to restore this man to his previous position in his Department.

Mr. Hobson: asked the Secretary of State for War what action he is taking arising from the case of the discharge of Mr. G. T. Wills, Harlescott Depot, Shrewsbury, to satisfy himself that the case was not one of victimisation.

Mr. Pargiter: asked the Secretary of State for War under whose authority the prosecution of Mr. G. T. Wills, Harlescott Depot, Shrewsbury, was initiated for eating a 1s. sandwich, for which he was fined £5 in the local court, a penalty which was later changed to a complete discharge by the Recorder.

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the decision by the Recorder to remit the fine imposed on Mr. G. T. Wills of Harlescott Depot, Shrewsbury, what steps he is taking to re-instate this man in his Department.

Mr. Lee: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of his failure to reinstate Mr. G. T. Wills of Harlescott Depot, Shrewsbury, in the service of his Department, he is prepared to take the necessary steps to restore to this man his gratuity

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): Mr. G. T. Wills, formerly a War Department unestablished employee and Chairman of the Canteen Committee at 43 "A" Vehicle Depot, Harlescott, was fined £5 for larceny of canteen sandwiches valued at 1s. He asked to have taken into account on his conviction his taking without payment over a period of some six months meals to approximately the value of £9 10s. His prosecution was the result of police inquiries instituted by the Officer Commanding 43 "A" Vehicle Depot. Mr. Wills had failed to exercise proper supervision over the running of the canteen.
Exhaustive inquiries have already been made into this case, and it has been given the fullest consideration. There is no question of victimisation. I have noted the decision and the remarks of the Recorder who, on 15th September, 1952, confirmed Mr. Wills' conviction and dismissed his appeal with an order of absolute discharge and a recommendation that his dismissal from the War Department might be reconsidered. This has


been done, but Mr. Wills was dismissed on account of irregularities in the running of the canteen which extended far beyond the offence which was the subject of the court proceedings; and I could not agree to his reinstatement. I have, however, taken account of representations made, and I have agreed that Mr. Wills, on application in the normal way, may be considered for re-employment by the War Department elsewhere than 43 "A" Vehicle Depot. As the decision on Mr. Wills' dismissal must stand, we are precluded from paying him any gratuity in respect of has four years' War Department service.

Mr. Pannell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that much of that reply is misleading? The charge upon which this man stood was that of eating a sandwich worth 1s. It was well understood over a long period that this was part of the perquisites of the job, and had this man been properly represented in the lower court he would undoubtedly have been acquitted. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman refer to the remarks of the Recorder calling upon the War Office to visit no other punishment upon this man, and why does he withhold, because of the sum of 1s., a gratuity worth £84? Is not this a gross abuse of power?

Mr. Head: I had a long discussion about this with the hon. Member and other hon. Members interested in the case. I do not think I can go into detail about it in the House. I have been into it very carefully and I have made the offer to Mr. Wills of re-employment elsewhere. I cannot go any further.

Mr. Bence: May we take it that if Mr. Wills is reinstated in another Department of the War Office his gratuity for the past four years will be continued, since the case was dismissed?

Mr. Head: No, Sir. It is automatic under a Treasury regulation that he forfeits his gratuity owing to this conviction.

Mr. Albu: Were not the Recorder's remarks equivalent to acquitting the man and saying that this was nothing more than a technical offence?

Mr. Head: No. As the hon. Member may have noticed, the Recorder said the man did wrong and knew that be was doing wrong.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Are the facts of the case that the penalty imposed upon this man was not for the one offence involving 1s., but that others were taken into account which involved considerably more?

Mr. Head: Yes—about £9 10s.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) has been misled; he has not come across the case until today. Is the Minister aware that the original charge in the lower court was about 1s.,and that the man fully understood that that was the only charge? The sum of £6 16s. was dragged in by the defence to make the point that this man had pursued this policy in the innocent belief that he was entitled to do so as a perquisite of the job.

Later—

Mr. Pannell: On reflection, I beg to give notice—[Hon. Members: "Too late."]—it is not too late; I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter of Mr. Wills on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Personal Case

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for War why a man, whose name has been supplied to him, having registered for National Service on 13th August last year, having enlisted on 14th September in the Royal Berkshire Regiment on a 3-years'service engagement and having been discharged on 20th November on the ground that his services were no longer required for the purpose for which he enlisted, was not immediately transferred to another unit where he could complete the period of National Service instead of being allowed to return to civilian life and then, after an interval of four weeks, being required to register again for National Service.

Mr. Head: This man was given the opportunity to remain in the Army as a National Service man but did not take advantage of it.

Mr. Hurd: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is very wasteful from the Army's point of view? The man has joined the Army, then he is found unsuitable for that unit; and instead of being allowed to continue his National Service, he is sent back to


civilian life, then called up again and has to be equipped again. Is it not very disturbing for the boy and very wasteful to the Army?

Mr. Head: That was not the case. This man joined as a Regular, and was later not fit as a Regular. He was asked whether he would continue as a National Service man, but he chose to be medically re-boarded, possibly in the hope that he would be rejected as a National Service man.

New Rifle

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the views expressed in the official telegram received by British officials negotiating in Washington on the standardisation of small arms, stating that it was War Office policy to standardise the Belgian F.N. rifle in January, 1951, was approved by the Army Council and represented Government policy.

Mr. Head: I have nothing to add to what was said last Tuesday.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not clear from what the Minister has said that he was quite wrong to refer to something as Government policy which had not been approved either by the Army Council or the Minister concerned, and would it not be better now if he were to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and withdraw the allegations he made in that debate?

Mr. Head: I was particularly careful to refer to it as War Office policy and not Government policy.

Mr. Strachey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's memory betray him? In HANSARD, 1st February, c. 100, he quite definitely alleges that this was the policy of my right hon. Friend personally, and then, as he explained the next day, of the Government. That is surely a charge which has turned out to be unfounded.

Mr. Head: No, Sir. I have looked the matter up in HANSARD most carefully, and if the hon. Gentleman looks he will see that what I said was:
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he will not be so impatient. I am stating that War Office policy as stated to the United States was,…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 101.]
I stated that immediately after I said that I was referring to the position as a whole.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that I have been very patient over this matter and with him personally. Will he be good enough to tell the House that he has written to me personally, conveying a qualified apology, and that I have written to him in reply, saying that I bear no malice? Would it not be proper for the right hon. Gentleman to be quite fair to the House and those concerned and give the facts without prejudice?

Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman has certainly been most pleasant over this matter. I wrote to him to assure him that I did not spend my time digging in the back files of the War Office in order to try and score points off him. What I did state on every occasion wasthat this was War Office policy. I was most scrupulous in stating that.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (UNITED KINGDOM BASES)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the continued use by the United States Air Force of a number of bases in the United Kingdom; to what extent this is now regarded by Her Majesty's Government as a permanent feature of the defence of Great Britain; what is the estimated cost to British public funds of the upkeep of these bases in the present year and in future years; what discussions have taken place with the United States Government with a view to modifying the extra-territorial status of United States courts-martial in Britain; and what special protection against atomic attack is being provided for the inhabitants of towns and villages near these bases.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): As I have previously informed the House, the arrangement for United States Air Force use of bases in this country will continue so long as it is needed in the general interest of world peace and security. The British contribution this year to maintenance costs will be £17,500. Apart from this sum, the maintenance of the bases will be entirely a charge on United States funds. As regards the construction of the bases, this country's direct financial contribution is limited to £22½ million out of an estimated total expenditure of £125 million


spread over the years 1951 to 1955. The question of criminal jurisdiction over United States Service personnel will be dealt with by the Visiting Forces Act when it comes into force. In making our Civil Defence dispositions, we will naturally give special attention to places that are specially liable to atomic attack.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the Prime Minister still adhere to the point of view that this country is in greater danger as the result of the American Air Force being here?

The Prime Minister: I think that I have stated that point of view in the sense that we were in the front line, and that is quite true. But the general policy of the late Government in rearming in conjunction with the United States and in making strong defence arrangements has played a noticeable and traceable part in the relaxation and diminution of tension which has occurred. I think that they deserve full credit for their action, in which we supported them, and which is being continued subject to the general tendency of events.

Mr. A. Henderson: Would not the Prime Minister agree that if the United States air squadrons were not situated in this country as part of Western air defence, it would have been necessary for the United Kingdom to have expended much more by the way of men, money and resources in building up our own air defence? Would he not also make it clear that,since these arrangements were made, the Americans have given more than £300 million in military defence aid to this country? Is it not also the fact that since these air squadrons arrived in 1949 we have received more than £100 million in terms of dollars as a result of their expenditure in this country?

Mr. Shinwell: In case there should be any misunderstanding about the official policy of the Parliamentary Labour Party, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the decision taken by the late Government in the light of the then international circumstances, which are apparently still prevailing, so far as we know, was a decision from which at the present time we are not prepared to run away?

The Prime Minister: I think that these statements made by responsible ex-Ministers on the Front Opposition Bench are a valuable contribution to our debate.

Mr. Driberg: In view of what the Prime Minister said about the danger that the presence of these bases in fact represents to this country, would he agree that that danger is intensified by the aggressive tendencies of people such as Chiang Kaishek and Singhman Rhee in the Far East and the consequent risk that the Sino-Soviet Mutual Assistance Pact might be invoked, and would he bear in mind that that danger necessitates even closer and fuller consultation with the British Government and people by our American allies?

The Prime Minister: These matters are, I notice, being seriously touched upon and have been discussed at the Conference now proceeding in Berlin, and possibly there will be a further Conference.

Mr. Logan: Is it not considered by the Government that the friendly action of the United States is beneficial to the British nation?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICY DOCUMENTS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Prime Minister if he will ensure that in future no signal or other communication conveying Government policy to a foreign power is sent from a Department without the previous assent of the Minister being expressly signified.

The Prime Minister: Such a rigid rule would not be practicable. The principles governing Ministerial responsibility and its exercise are well known.

Mr. Craddock: Does the Prime Minister think that there is the remotest possibility that anything vital concerning Government policy could leave this country and go to a foreign power unless it had the sanction of the Minister concerned?

The Prime Minister: It would not be possible to have such a rigid rule as that. The Minister, of course, is supposed to know the general course of policy pursued by his Department in any particular direction, and he naturally would have cause to complain if he had not been informed of the course of action if it departed from the general course that he was pursuing. We cannot say that nothing is to be done that a Minister does not see. He is responsible, however, for anything that goes on and making sure that nothing goes on which he does not like.

Mr. Strachey: Would the Prime Minister agree that the particular telegram, to which, I think, my hon. Friend is referring, was not a communication to a foreign power but was a telegram fromone part of the War Office to another; a telegram for which, of course, I take the fullest responsibility. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Certainly. I have done it at all times. But it was a telegram proposing from one part of the War Office to another that they would recommend to the Government, in certain eventualities, a particular course of action on which they could not possibly decide, nor could I have decided on it. It could only have been decided by the Cabinet.

The Prime Minister: I think that the account which the right hon. Gentleman has given is in accord with the general practice. It might be perhaps as well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember that we are discussing this against the background that, in choosing the Belgian instead of the British rifle, we had committed an act of shameful betrayal of our soldiers and in consequence it was necessary to show that the matter was very carefully considered from many angles beforehand.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I put one or two questions to the Prime Minister? Will he recall that there are confidential communications between Ministers here and powers abroad on the part of both this Government and their predecessors? Is it not important that when they take place, especially on matters of delicacy, they should take place on a basis of frankness, without the fear of political use of those documents later on? Would

it not be reasonable, while I do not perhaps go quite as far as my hon. Friend, that if divulgences are to be made, the Minister concerned in the former Government should be informed so that he may have the fairness of refreshing his mind in readiness for the discussion that is taking place?
May I put it to the Prime Minister that if Ministers in this or any other Government, when having interchanges with foreign powers, must think about possibilities of future debate in the House when they think that the interchanges are confidential, it may lead to a highly inconvenient situation and lack of frankness?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman has said explains the general rule and practice in these matters, but there are exceptions which have been made, for which many precedents can be shown, over a number of years. One, I think, occurred in regard to the bombing beyond the Yalu, when it was necessary for the House to be informed of what had taken place in the past in order to put what was happening now in its right and proper setting. But I entirely agree that these examinations of past records of former Governments should be entirely exceptional and only used when there are special circumstances.

Mr. Morrison: Would it not have been reasonable in both cases that the former Minister concerned should at least have been informed that this proposed action was to be taken? Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the precedent set must be open to be followed by following Governments, just as I should have a right to quote anything in these circumstances, of this nature or this type of communication, that may have transpired in the War Cabinet? I am on a serious point of upholding what are proper standards of fairness in these matters as between Ministers and ex-Ministers.

The Prime Minister: In view of the violent language which has been used and the very serious charges made against Her Majesty's Government, I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was quite justified in what he did. But I am sure it would have been entirely


in accordance with his own wishes, had the time and circumstances permitted, to have informed the right hon. Gentleman concerned beforehand, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is the best practice that should be followed in the future.

Mr. Shinwell: On the general, and not this specific, point, is the Prime Minister aware that I was in communication with the Ministry of Defence before the debate on the rifle took place, asking about certain documents for which I was responsible as Minister of Defence in the late Government, and in particular about a confidential telegram despatched by the Ministry of Defence to the British Joint Services Mission in Washington, and that on the instructions of the Permanent Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Defence I was refused access to that document?

Mr. Morrison: That is wrong.

The Prime Minister: Every case has to be judged on its merits. If the right hon. Gentleman will furnish me with the details, I will make inquiries.

Mr. Shinwell: These are they.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has given neither dates, time, circumstances, nor anything. If he will send me a memorandum on the point, I will look into it. Certainly, I think an ex-Minister is entitled as a general rule to have access to records of his own action, unless anything has occurred which makes that particular topic of special significance.

Mr. Morrison: Is it not a firm rule that a former Minister has a right of access, not only to Departmental com-

munications, records and telegrams—all of them—during the period that he was a Minister, but to Cabinet records, whereas the succeeding Government of another colour, or, possibly of any colour—at any rate, of another colour—has no right to the Cabinet records, although, of course, Foreign Office telegrams can be used, as they were on one of the occasions mentioned, to that effect? Is it not obviously wrong that my right hon. Friend should have been denied access to documents which were in the Department during his period of office as a Minister? Would not the Prime Minister say so right away?

The Prime Minister: I should certainly have been rather distressed if I had not been given access to some of the documents for which I had been responsible. I have said that I will look into this. But there is a general custom, and custom morethan law, that the Cabinet documents of one Government are not considered by those who are the Ministers in another Government; they are left as their own internal affairs.

Mr. Morrison: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: I have not seen any case that requires a new precedent to be set in that respect.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the attention of the House to the hour.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

PRICE CONTROL (DETERGENTS)

Sir Richard Acland: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the retail price of Surf, Daz, Fab, Persil, Tide and other soap powders, soap substitutes, detergents, &amp;c.
This is the first of what I hope will prove to be a series of useful and popular Measures, all designed with the simple and laudable object of reducing the cost of living. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you do not like us to bring into the House bulky articles by way of exhibits to illustrate the arguments which we have in mind, and therefore I have purchased a few packets and emptied them and flattened them in order to illustrate the purport of the Bill.
This first packet when full of Surf is retailed today at 1s. I and my honourable supporters propose the maximum price of l0d. This next one retails at 1s. 11d., and we propose 1s. 7d. This one when full of Tide retails at 1s., and we propose 10d.; and this retails at 1s. 11d., and we propose 1s. 7d. This one when full of Daz retails at 1s., and we propose 10d. This one—you will never guess—retails at 1s. 11d. and we propose 1s. 7d. Minor adjustments in these proposed prices and in those which we shall propose for packets of other sizes and products of other makes can be considered during the Committee stage.
This packet is very remarkable, because on the back of it will be found a money-saving coupon, which is an infernal nuisance to the grocer or ironmonger, with which one would be entitled to purchase a 1s. 11d. packet of this substance for 1s. 5d. That is not the only way in which one can come across these coupons. This one, for example, was put through my front door on Friday, and with it one can get two large packets of Tide for 1s. 6d. In this connection the word "large" is a trade term meaning small, because it refers to the shilling packet, than which there is no smaller.
Here is another remarkable package, because I did not pay anything for it. On the contrary, only on Monday of last week a van and two runners entered our street. The runners ran along the street and rang all the bells and ran away, so that when I and other householders went

to our front doors no one was on the step except a packet of Daz.
More than £2½ million is spent each year on advertising these things in the Press, not to mention posters, free distribution and the competitions in which houses worth £4,000 and cars with several hundred pounds worth of petrol are given away as prizes. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who are interrupting should know that this Ten Minutes Rule Bill will develop into a Twenty Minutes Rule Bill if they continue, and that would be out of order.
The principle behind this Bill is simple. This is not a Bill to object to advertising as such. Therefore, if any hon. Member or any honourable advertising agent opposite makes a speech in favour of advertising in general, he will be missing the point. We have got no objection against the quality of these products, although I think that the manufacturers will agree that it is best to use some of them in rubber gloves. And I will agree that a couple of years ago when detergents first came on the market, there was nothing seriously wrong in spending money to tell the public about them.
The principle behind this Bill is this: We have reached the stage when we, as responsible representatives in our constituencies for the housewives, have got a right and a duty to say that the leaders of privately-owned big business shall not play the fool with public money any longer, but should cut down this advertising to reasonable proportions, and should do what is manifestly wanted, namely, reduce prices. It might surprise and exasperate hon. Members opposite to hear it suggested that the money spent on this advertising campaign is in fact public money, but I insist that it is, and that for two reasons. [Interruption.] As there is little time to debate this Measure, the hon. Member opposite should try to restrain himself. After all, he may have the advantage of catching Mr. Speaker's eye.
I was saying that I may exasperate and surprise hon. Members opposite when I say that the money spent on this advertising campaign is, in fact, public money, but I suggest that it is for two reasons. First, advertising expenditure is a deduction for Income Tax and Profits Tax purposes. It varies, of course, from company to company with the different incidence of Profits Tax, and how the


different individuals happen to be rated for Income Tax and Surtax, and so on.
But, roughly speaking, when an advertiser of petrol inflames the passion for speed and acceleration by putting up pictures of leaping tigers, and when, for example, D. H. Evans give us a picture of a smug polar bear enjoying himself with a rather scantily dressed young lady, we are paying one-half of the show. [Hon. Members: "Which half?"] But apart from that, this advertising is financed with the money which the public pays for detergents and I contend that the money paid for packets of detergents and soap powders is every bit as much public money as the money paid for railway tickets or for education through rates and taxes. We have a right to say that this thing has gone far enough, and that we have no more desire to see perhaps some £4 million worth of the nation's resources in manpower and materials—largely imported raw materials and many of them from dollar sources—squandered in this way.
I hope no hon. Member opposite is going to get up and say that these big companies have given us the great blessing of detergents and that we ought not to complain in any way about their policy. Let us get away from this habit of de-personalising these issues. A big limited liability company is a legalistic concept which existsfor accountancy purposes and for almost nothing else. It has no legs, it does not wear trousers, it has no eyes and cannot see, and it certainly cannot invent detergents. These detergents are invented by scientists and chemists who work for salaries. We are indeed very lucky that we live in an age when these blessings are made available to us by these working men, and I think it is silly that these playboys of the big business world should now stand in the way of the ordinary housewife getting these things at the cheapest reasonable price.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) rise to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Nicholls: I do.
I could hardly distinguish whether the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) was introducing a Bill, conduct-

ing a mock auction or putting on a theatrical act—

Brigadier Terence Clarke: How much was he paid for it?

Mr. Nicholls: —or whether it was a serious Bill or part of a technical move to call attention again to the cost of living. I prefer—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke)—

Mr. William Keenan (Liverpool, Kirk-dale): He does not use detergents.

Mr. Lewis: —shouted out quite audibly to hon. Members on this side, "How much is the hon. Baronet paid to bring in this Bill?" Is that in order?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that remark, but if it was made, it ought to be withdrawn.

Brigadier Clarke: I willingly withdraw the remark, but I thought that it was the best bit of advertising that I have heard so far for detergents.

Mr. Nicholls: I prefer to believe that the hon. Baronet, who is well known to the House, was deliberately putting on an exhibition, because I would hate to believe that he is so naive as to think that merely by the Government producing a Bill such as this we could set about reducing prices. If it could be done as easily as that, and if this great problem of living costs could be dealt with by passing Bills, we should find ample time to do it.
We all know that merely passing a Bill giving the Government extra power over an industry does nothing at all in the way of reducing costs. If we look at past experience in this matter, we find that when the Government took control of industries in that way, fax from prices being reduced they were very much increased. In no field has that been proved more completely than in the field with which the hon. Member has been dealing, namely, soap and detergents.
Controls were applied to them in 1942, and in the 10 years of their existence prices did nothing but rise, and I think that if the House is to consider this Bill it should have the evidence before it. The pre-war price of Persil was 3½d. On decontrol 10 years afterwards it had risen to 6d. The pre-war price of Rinso


was 6d., and after 10 years of the sort of control which I presume the hon. Member has in mind the 6d. grew to Is. The pre-war price of hard soaps was 4d. a 1b. and after 10 years of control the price had gone up to 1s. 0½d. Toilet soaps have increased by something like 100 per cent. The hon. Member is not doing the housewives much of a benefit if the effect of the policies which he wants to put into operation means that the price of the soap has got to rise.
So I believe that the first lesson we can learn from experience, which we ought not to ignore, is that Government controls of any kind increase the prices of the goods we buy. This lesson is reinforced by what has happened over the last two years since we have been freed from the kind of control which the hon. Baronet now wants to re-apply.
I will give the figures to the House. [An Hon. Member: "What about tea?"] Sunlight soap has gone down from 1s. 0½d. to ll½d.; Fairy soap from 1s. to 11d.; Persil from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 8d.; Rinso from 1s. to 11d. As far as detergents are concerned, whilst there has not been any great reduction in cost, it is clear that the quality has improved so much that the housewife is getting much better value than before. [An Hon. Member: "Soft soap."] I am suggesting that, as regards price reductions, the policy that I presume will be included in this proposed Bill is one which, on evidence, has increased prices and not reduced them.
Then I fail to understand the antipathy of the hon. Baronet to the energy shown by manufacturers as reflected in their advertising campaigns. I have nothing whatever to do with advertising; I have nothing whatever to do with soap or detergents—by way of profit—but I have some slight contact with small business, and any business house decides as a definite policy what money it can spend on its advertising campaign, and if that is spent in one way or another it does not matter to the consumer. It certainly is not the fact that if this money were not spent on advertising the manufacturers could bring down the cost of the article.
Any business man knows that the best advertisement he can produce for his goods is to reduce their price, and at this

season of the year, when there are queues outside the shops which have "annual" sales, that point is brought home to us vividly. What advertising does is to put the various manufacturers of the same product in competition with one another. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Oh, yes, and the result of the keen competition is that we have much better quality detergents now. I am arguing that this form of advertisement has resulted in keeping prices down so far and has resulted so far in putting up quality.
The third point mentioned by the hon. Baronet was the suggestion that the manufacturers were tied up with one another, all playing a game against the consumer. All this talk about monopoly does not bear examination. There are five big concerns and, in addition, there are about 200 small ones, all in keen competition with one another. In the case of the five big firms, there is no question of a friendly ring set up to exploit the consumer, because among the five firms there is fierce and keen competition.
As I have said, I believe that the hon. Baronet was indulging in a gesture this afternoon. Whether or not he gets his Bill today, I am convinced that it will reach no further stage than its mere presentation because, since we have had decontrol of these products, so many variations have been put on the market that it would be practically impossible to bring about any form of price control which would alter the picture in the way suggested by the hon. Baronet.
Whether or not my hon. Friends will take the trouble to spend their time this afternoon in opposing the Bill, I do not know, but I suggest that whether the hon. Baronet gets it or not, this is the last we shall see of the Bill as regards any effective results arising from it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Richard Acland, Mr. Foot, Mr. Delargy. Mr. Ellis Smith, Mr. Sydney Silverman, Mr. Harold Wilson and Mr. Elwyn Jones.

PRICE CONTROL (NO. 1) BILL

"to reduce the retail price of Surf, Daz, Fab, Persil, Tide and other soap powders, soap substitutes, detergents, etc.," presented, accordingly, and read the First time, to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

PURCHASE TAX (CHANGES)

3.55 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move.
That the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order, 1954 (S.I., 1954, No. 1), dated 1st January 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th January, be approved.
I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if this Order were to be discussed with the two following Motions on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Purchase Tax (No. 2) Order 1954 (S.I., 1954, No. 2), dated 1st January 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th January, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Purchase Tax (No. 3) Order, 1954 (S.I., 1954, No. 3), dated 1st January 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th January, be annulled.
I understand that this course would meet the convenience of the Opposition, subject to your permission.

Mr. Speaker: If that is agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Douglas Jay: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that would suit our convenience.

Mr. Speaker: Then I agree to it, but I would ask for the co-operation of the House in this matter. From the point of view of the Chair, the difficulty of extending the debate on the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include the Orders which are the subject of the two Prayers is that it widens the scope of the discussion somewhat. As the House knows, in dealingwith these Orders we are supposed to deal only with the commodities which are mentioned in the three Orders concerned. So I ask for the co-operation of the House with the Chair in not enlarging the debate into general questions about Purchase Tax, which would be more appropriate to the Budget debates. As long as the House agrees to deal only with those commodities which are the subject of the Orders, I have no objection to the proposal.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Subject, then, to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, with which I will of course endeavour sedulously to comply, we can discuss together the three Orders which embody all the Purchase Tax changes which my right hon. Friend made at the beginning of this year.
As the House will be aware, the difference in procedure flows from the fact that under our procedure Statutory Instruments which have, or might have, the effect of increasing taxation require an affirmative Resolution such as the one I have risen to move, whereas others which have the effect of reducing taxation are subject only to the negative procedure, and therefore fall to be discussed only on a Motion such as that put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
It would probably we both convenient and in accordance with your Ruling, Sir, if I were to deal in some detail with the contents of this first Order and perhaps more broadly with Statutory Instruments No. 2 and No. 3 which deal with the relaxation of tax upon a considerable number of articles. That would be convenient, among other things, because I am not in a position to know at this stage to which of the particular remissions of taxation embodied in these Orders the Opposition take exception. Therefore, I will start with some observations upon Statutory Instrument No. 1.
This Order deals with three matters. It clears up the largely marginal anomalies relating to the rather diverse subjects of plain elastic fabrics, on the one hand, and gold-plated teapots, on the other. It deals also with the rather more substantial matter of the reimposition of tax at the rate applied to other floor coverings, that is, 25 per cent., on certain tiles, strips and blocks. I should like to deal first with the two minor anomalies, on which I doubt whether the House will desire any prolonged discussion.
Plain elastic fabrics were accidentally exempted in the 1948 Purchase Tax Schedule, in an exemption that was intended to cover only fabrics used for industrial purposes. In point of fact, the plain elastic fabric used in ordinary consumption has paid tax without any question until recent months, if less than three inches in width as haberdashery


and, if more than three inches in width, as cloth. It is only in recent months that the validity of the tax has been questioned and it has appeared that there was a technical error in the 1948 Schedule. The provision of the Order which is now before the House puts that right, and makes it clear that tax is lawfully payable, as it has been paid until recent months.
Similarly, the provision in respect of gold-plated containers of food and drink arises from a rather curious error in the 1948 Purchase Tax Schedule. The House will recall that plain containers of food and drink were exempted from tax, for fairly obvious reasons. It was provided that theexemption should not apply to silver-plated articles of that sort and they have continued to pay tax at 25 per cent. But those who were then drafting forgot the gold-plated ones and as a result we have the rather curious anomaly that gold-plated teapots, which are perhaps not amongst the more elementary necessities of life, have through accident been exempted from tax. This Order reimposes it but, with admirable impartiality, at the same rate as for silver teapots. The House will recall that on previous occasions it has been necessary to move Motions of this kind to tidy up a tax in this way.
The first Statutory Instrument also re-imposes tax on tiles, strips and blocks, and places them in the same position as other floor coverings, that is to say, taxable at the rate of 25 per cent. To put this matter in perspective, it might be helpful to recount briefly the history of the subject. From 1940–41 until 1948 these articles were taxed at the same rate as other floor coverings, at whatever were the current rates then ruling. In 1948 the then Government exempted them with the intention that these materials, as a result of the exercise of the then building controls, should be used only in newly-built houses erected by public authorities. It is perhaps relevant to our discussion to note what was said at the time. It so happened that the Order making this exemption was subject to a Prayer, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). Discussion took place, to which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), then Economic

Secretary to the Treasury, replied for the Government.
The arguments which were adduced in favour of the Prayer, that is, for the annulment of the Order, can be summarised under two heads. The first argument suggested that the exemption of these floor coverings introduced an element of unfairness as between them and other floor coverings. The second argument was that the Order provided an incentive to cut rolls of linoleum or rubber flooring into little pieces in order that the little pieces should qualify as tiles for tax exemption. Unless he wishes me to do so, I do not want to quote his characteristic, admirably clear reply in extenso, but the right hon. Member for Battersea, North indicated two things.
He said that in fact there was at that time no unfairness from the point of view of competition, because other competing floor coverings were in such short supply—that is the language of those days—that competition would not really arise. Everybody could sell all they could make, and he said that there was no evidence that manufacturers were seeking to avoid the burden of tax and having taxable floor coverings out into little pieces and calling them tiles. He said that if evidence arose on either point this matter would be given reconsideration.
I carry the argument from that point. Both these circumstances, which the House in general and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North in particular, admitted would involve consideration of the matter, have arisen for some little time now. Perhaps it would be of assistance to the House if I went into that aspect of the matter. Indeed, so obviously have they arisen that in November last the right hon. Member chided the present Government on their lack of diligence in connection with this subject, and perhaps he will now show his gratitude for the fact that action is being taken.

Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman is going a little far. What I did was to ask the Government what they intendedto do, without giving any advice as to the proper course, one way or another.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Member will recall that he indicated that


we ought to get on with the matter. He said:
This is why I want him to correct the present position.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 1045.]
If the right hon. Gentleman then wanted to correct the present position, I hope that he is grateful to us for now so doing.
I ask the indulgence of the House for going into this rather complicated matter a little, but I should like now to bring the account of it down to recent months. Some 18 months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. F. Maclean), in whose city a large part of the linoleum industry of this country is concentrated, brought a deputation to the Treasury to urge a rectification of the present position. The deputation indicated that the linoleum industry was suffering seriously from the competition of tax-free materials, and facts were submitted whichsatisfied my right hon. Friend of this. Equally, it has become clear beyond dispute that the practice which in 1948 the then Opposition benches indicated might grow—the practice of taking perfectly good rolls of linoleum and rubber flooring and cutting them into squares so that they might go through the sieve of Purchase Tax—has developed to a substantial extent. We are faced, therefore, with the position which hon. Members who are now in opposition said in 1948 would compel reconsideration if that position should arise.
My right hon. Friend, therefore, was faced with two plain alternatives—either to withdraw Purchase Tax from all floor coverings, no doubt a much more popular course, or to impose it equally on all floor coverings. I think that the House will agree that there is a great deal to be said in fairness for adopting one or other of these courses. The first, and patently the more attractive alternative has the disadvantage that it would be extremely expensive. Last year the yield of taxation on floor covering was no less than £17 million a year, a substantial sum.
Consequently, the alternative course of trying to treat all floor coverings on the same basis seems to be the only course consistent with fairness as between manufacturer and manufacturer and worker and worker. Faced with the evidence that competing industries were suffering from the competition of tax-free com-

petitors and consequently that time and energy were being wasted in the process of cutting up perfectly good linoleum and rubber flooring to make it tax-free, it was not possible to retain the existing position.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: My right hon. Friend will appreciate my special interest in the carpet industry. Is he in a position to say what, out of the £17 million Purchase Tax on floor coverings as a whole, is attributable to carpets and rugs? It is my impression that the overwhelming bulk of that £17 million is on carpets and rugs and not on the type of floor coverings referred to in the Order.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend is entirely right; none of the types of floor covering in this Order has contributed to the yield of tax, because they are exempt from tax. I will certainly give my hon. Friend the figures for thecarpet industry if they are available, and I will endeavour to obtain them for him. We are concerned with the whole field of floor coverings and with the competition at the lower end of the scale between cheap tiles and linoleum and, at the top end, between more expensive carpets and tax-free parquet flooring. With his considerable knowledge of the subject, I do not think my hon. Friend will have any difficulty in discovering—if he does not already know—that the degree of competition which exists between tax-free and taxed products is not confined by any manner of means to any one part of the price scale, but is effective at the top and the bottom. Certainly carpets, of which he is a valiant defender, are in close competition with other floorings.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Has my right hon. Friend set off against the £17 million the increased cost per house which will arise due to the fitting of floor tiles, which are quite different from the linoleum squares—the "little pieces" as my right hon. Friends calls them?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am coming to that point; in fact I shall come to it almost immediately in my notes. If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop this complicated argument in my own way, I shall not seek to avoid that. That way, I shall not seek to avoid that.
That is the problem which I ask the House to consider, faced with the two


facts to which I have referred—how to secure that the tax system operates fairly and equitably between competing products and producers. When I say, "competing producers," I mean those concerned either as employer or as employee in manufacture.
The problem which arose for consideration is that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) has referred—the effect that any such change as this may have on the cost of housing. It is undoubtedly the case that the exemption in 1948 was intended to be part and parcel of the operations in the sphere of housing of right hon. Members opposite. It was the tile rather than the wooden flooring with which they were concerned and tiles, if used to cover the entire floor of a council house, would bear tax which would have the effect of increasing the total price of that house by between £3 and £4. That is the figure in respect of the whole of the ground floor of the house. I do not think the higher floors, except in very exceptional cases, would be covered.

Sir Robert Boothby: Only the very cheapest tiles, or the slightly more expensive?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is the type of tile which, I am informed, is habitually used in local authority houses. The more expensive are more often used for public buildings, for cinemas, restaurants, liners, and so on. We are concerned with the local authority houses, where the increased cost would be a matter of £3 or £4. That, of course, is not negligible—no amount in connection with housing is negligible—but it is one of a number of factors in the cost of housing which change frequently without affecting the general picture. This is a once-for-all addition to capital cost which is about the same as local authorities will save every year for 60 years by the reduction of the P.W.L.B. rate last October. That sets the scale. It is a very small factor in the general calculation of housing costs.
A more difficult problem is the one with which my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) is concerned, the precise line of demarcation of where the tax should fall. The intention is that it should fall on floor coverings and, of course, it is a matter

of legitimate argument when a certain article ceases to be a floor covering and becomes a floor. It is a matter of almost metaphysical difficulty and one, therefore, upon which my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire is peculiarly well qualified to speak. The difficulty is in drawing the precise lines of demarcation, and it arises particularly in connection with various types of wooden floors. The intention, which I think the House will regard as sensible, is that the expensive parquet floor should pay its share in competition, as it is, with other more expensive floorings. The difficulty comes in deciding on the precise thickness of the tile which will make it a floor covering as opposed to an ingredient of a floor.

Sir R. Boothby: That is the point.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figure we have used, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire knows, is five-eighths of an inch thickness—

Sir R. Boothby: The wrong figure.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It may well be the wrong figure, but it is the figure which was in fact agreed with the trade when the tax was originally imposed in 1940–41. For that reason, largely, that figure has been used in this Order. Hon. Members will appreciate that this is just the sort of matter, now that the tax changes have been made, which is very appropriate for discussion with the trades concerned. As hon. Members are aware, there are obvious difficulties in discussing possible tax changes with outside interests in advance. The House will not need reminding of the obvious need for security in contemplating changes, but once they are made, it is perfectly proper and appropriate for particular interests who feel, rightly or wrongly, that the line of demarcation or other technical issues are wrong, to make representations on the subject.
As I have told my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire, my right hon. Friend and his advisers will be happy to discuss these technical matters with the trade interests concerned. Yesterday I saw the representatives of another side of the trade, the manufacturers of thermoplastic tiles, and told them that, now that the Order had been published, consultations are perfectly


possible and it would be open to them to make such representations as they thought fit in order to suggest that the precise line of demarcation had been wrongly drawn.
These are technical matters with which I do not want to weary the House. They are matters which are more susceptible to detailed representation. I refer to them only in order to make it abundantly clear that my right hon. Friend—as always—is prepared to listen to representations which suggest that the line of demarcation, or any of the technical details involved, has been inappropriately drawn. I understand that the particular interests concerned are likely to respond to that invitation and to put their views. The matter is one for detailed discussion.
What is clear, and what the House will expect, is that the broad purpose of this proposal is that there should be fairness as between one floor covering and another and that competition should not be adversely or unfairly affected by tax discrimination, and equally that wholly wasteful processes—legal, no doubt, but wholly wasteful—of cutting rolls into little bits, should not be encouraged by the tax system. That is the broad purpose of the provision.
Statutory Instruments Nos. 2 and 3, as I have already indicated, embody the reductions in tax which my right hon. Friend authorised at the beginning of January. I do not know which of these reductions the Opposition will desire to criticise. It will probably suit the convenience of the House if I deal rapidly with the broad picture, briefly picking out the more conspicuous points. Criticisms, if there are any, can then be made and answered.
The main effect of Statutory Instrument No. 2 is to reduce the Purchase Tax on a series of articles from 75 to 50 per cent. The first item dealt with is mirrors. The reason is twofold. In the first place, the trade was adversely affected. In the second place, mirrors have become practically the only articles of domestic furniture taxed at the very high rate of 75 per cent.
The next item comprises electric space heaters, immersion heaters and geysers, which come down from 75 to 50 per cent. They come down to the same rate as other domestic electrical appliances, and

they also come down to the rate bearing on equivalent gas apparatus. It seems reasonable to bring them to that level, particularly as there is some evidence that the high rate of tax has had some effect on production and there has also been some tendency to lowered quality and, therefore, perhaps to lowered safety.
The larger item is that of jewellery and silverware, where a similar reduction is effected. The argument here is that these are important and valuable craft industries, depending upon acquired and, in many cases, inherited skill, which were suffering in considerable degree from the very high rate of tax of 75 per cent. There was the consequence also, particularly in the jewellery field, of considerable tax avoidance which the high rate of tax made rather worth while to those indulging in it, and which it was somewhat difficult to check. For these reasons, my right hon. Friend thought the time appropriate to bring the rate of tax down to 50 per cent.
This topic has been the subject of a very considerable number of representations by hon. Members on both sides of the House, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who had an Adjournment debate on the subject, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P, Roberts), whose combined eloquence has suggested from time to time that this group of industries was suffering from the weight of tax.
The remainder of Statutory Instrument No. 2 deals with another anomaly. Gold and silver-plated articles have always been taxed at the rate appropriate to the article. Rolled gold and rolled silver were treated as jewellery. To clear up that anomaly, rolled gold and rolled silver are put in the same position as plated gold and plated silver; that is to say, the rate of tax appropriate is not that appropriate to jewellery but that appropriate to the article. A rolled silver or rolled gold pencil is taxed as a pencil, which seems to me to be sensible.

Sir R. Boothby: Hear. hear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Statutory Instrument No. 3 makes a number of further reductions. I will run through it quickly. Fabric lampshades come down from 50 to 25 per cent.; that is, to the same rate


as ordinary lampshades. There is no particular reason to discriminate against fabric lampshades, and my right hon. Friend decided to bring them down to the same level as the others. Hand-operated washing machines come down from 50 to 25 per cent., being put on the same level as other manually-operated domestic appliances. Most walking sticks and canes are already tax-free as a result of an order made by my right hon. Friend some little time ago. A few ornamental ones were still left at the 75 per cent, rate, and they come down to 50 per cent.
A big change from the point of view of clearing up the anomalies about which the right hon. Gentleman opposite used to indicate that my hon. Friends made such entertaining speeches is the reduction in the tax on prints and engravings from 75 to 50 per cent. This means that an ornamental article which would otherwise pay 50 per cent. will not be upgraded to 75 per cent. because it is in the form of a picture or engraving.
The special charge of 75 per cent. on components of umbrellas, which was put on to check a form of tax evasion a little time ago, is removed. The reason is that the tax on umbrellas, having now fallen to 25per cent., is low enough to make that form of tax avoidance not worth while. It is therefore possible to remove the protective measure, and this will give some relief to repairers who suffered a little difficulty as the result of the necessary anti-evasion provision adding to the cost of the components which they used.

Mr. M. Follick: Does the reduction to 25 per cent. apply to all umbrellas, including gold-mounted umbrellas?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Order deals not with the tax on umbrellas but with the tax on umbrella components—the special 75 per cent. tax on bits of umbrellas, if the hon. Member prefers that description. Umbrellas themselves do not come under the Order, and, therefore, subject to Mr. Speaker's Ruling, I cannot have the pleasure of discussing them with the hon. Member.

Sir R. Boothby: And if they are gold bits, they are subject to tax?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If they are gold bits, it depends whether they are rolled

gold or plated gold. I recommend my hon. Friend to take advice before he goes out to buy one.
Finally, there is a provision which will be very helpful from the point of avoiding the sillier anomalies which exist under this tax. The present law is that if an ornament or article of fancy goods is in the form of a figure, it carries a higher rate of tax than it would otherwise do. A classical example was the dog with a corkscrew emerging from some portion of its anatomy, with which the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) had such fun a little time ago. Under this provision, that sort of anomaly is, I believe, eliminated, and the dog can now have a corkscrew emerging from its anatomy at any possible angle without attracting any higher rate of tax as a result.

Sir Harold Webbe: If the figure were a copy of one of Mr. Henry Moore's statues, would it be regarded as a figure?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like to see the statue first.
To sum up, the three Orders embody the changes which my right hon. Friend thought it necessary to make, and broadly they are designed to give relief to industries adversely affected by the rate of tax and to clear up anomalies, inconsistencies and unfairnesses in the actual operation of the tax. As has already been announced, the net cost of thesechanges will be some £2 million in a full year. Owing to the fact that Purchase Tax is payable quarterly in arrears, they will not affect the revenue receipts in the current year, but they will begin to operate very early in the next financial year.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Would it be convenient for my hon. Friend to give the House the answers to Questions Nos. 64 and 67 on today's Order Paper, which were not reached, for they affect the issue of Purchase Tax Order (No. 1), that is, the revenue expected to be collected by means of Purchase Tax on floor coverings which were hitherto exempt? If that were possible, it would assist those who wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I was not aware of the Questions which it would have


fallen to my right hon. Friend to answer had they been reached. With regard to the revenue on floor coverings, the best calculation we can make is that there will be an increased yield of about £1 million. That is the best figure I can offer, but here we are concerned with a wide variety of articles, and I should not like to lead my hon. Friend to believe that that is a precise answer.
The decision in accordance with the broad plan to which I have referred—the relief of industries suffering from a high rate of tax, and the clearing up of anomalies and inconsistencies—is a matter of considerable difficulty. This is clearly a matter on which opinions can, and do, legitimately differ as to whether one article should be preferred against another. My experience is that those who manufacture the articles which have benefited approve of the changes and those who manufacture articles which have not benefited do not approve of them.
But, in the last resort, it is a matter of judgment as to what, within the limits of the finance available, is the most generally advantageous change to make. It is therefore particularly convenient, Mr. Speaker, that you have allowed me to present the argument for these Orders together, because it is as a consistent whole aimed at those two objectives that they are best and most fairly judged.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: Is there any significance in the timing of these announcements? Why do they happen to be made now?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Because my right hon. Friend thought it an appropriate moment at which to make them.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I can relieve one of the anxieties of the Financial Secretary straight away by assuring him that we put down the two Prayers not because we wished to oppose these reductions in tax, but because we thought that the House ought to have an opportunity to discuss the matter.
There are two good reasons why the House should scrutinise all three Orders with a good deal of care. The first one, about which the Financial Secretary was most reticent, is that the Government have introduced one slice of their Budget

by Statutory Instrument in January. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has literally anticipated his Budget statement by three months. That is a sufficient innovation in itself to be worthy of some notice. Secondly, the changes proposed raise several major issues of tax policy, as the Financial Secretary agrees.
First, as to the new idea of a January Budget, what the Chancellor has done has been to carry out certainly the biggest batch of Purchase Tax changes, if not the biggest batch of tax changes of any kind, outside the main April Budget. And he has done it in the form of delegated legislation under the powers which we introduced in the Finance Act, 1948.
The Financial Secretary, the once great opponent of delegated legislation, now not merely believes in it, but he believes in using it on a scale never before attempted as far as our taxation is concerned. It is gratifying and encouraging to us on this side of the House to discover that the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary have not merely found our arguments on this point conclusive, but his own totally unconvincing.
The decision to make the changes just after Christmas obviously has some advantages from the point of view of the still obstinate problem of retailers'stocks and the losses which the retailers suffer when tax is reduced. I imagine that that is the reason the Chancellor has done this, and I do not know why he should not say so. It is true that retailers'stocks of many goods are low just after Christmas. But there are disadvantages on the other side about which I should like to hear the views of the Government later. Next year traders will have come to expect a change early in January. Though no doubt that will not alter the whole course of Christmas trade, it will have some effect.
Secondly, and more serious, there is nothing in the present action of the Government to prevent them making, not individual reductions, but sweeping changes in one or more of the three rates of tax in the April Budget in addition. Indeed, since the Chancellor cannot say this, it is perhaps for me to warn industry that that is probably just exactly what the Government intend to do this year—to make the individual changes in items by Order in January, and then to lower rates in April as well. But, of course, since the lowering


of rates can cause much larger losses to retailers if it is done over the whole field, as it was last year, then this procedure does not really touch the major part of the problem of retailers' stocks. We must bear that in mind.
Thirdly, and most serious, this method imposes the greatest possible limitation on the essential rights of the House of Commons to discuss and amend these changes in taxation. The individual changes in Purchase Tax are made by Order, and they cannot be amended. The rates are altered in the Budget, and the Budget Resolution, as last year, is so framed as to prevent Amendments throughout the whole of theFinance Bill. If that course is followed then, although the Government make a whole lot of changes, at no time can the House of Commons propose any Amendment of its own. I should like to know whether that is what the Government now intend. Do they regard that as a precedent for the future?
If we are not careful, by proceeding with this method, we may fail to solve the problem of retailers' stocks, and at the same time severely limit the rights of the House. In the 1950 and 1951 Budgets when we made alterations in separate items of Purchase Tax, we so framed the Resolution that hon. Members could propose similar Amendments to alter items between at least those rates of taxation. But even that right is taken away by the procedure now adopted.
The Orders also raise issues of tax policy. What exactly is the Government policy on Purchase Tax behind this selection of increases and decreases? We approach these Orders from this point of view. We should like to see Purchase Tax steadily removed from ordinary householdgoods and necessities, and preserved as a tax on luxuries and, to a lesser extent, as an instrument to assist exports, productivity, fuel efficiency and other desirable ends of that kind. But to judge by these Orders the Government appear to be moving inprecisely the opposite direction.
First, taking the three Orders together, they lower the tax on electric fires, jewellery, mirrors, pictures and prints, ornamental walking sticks and canes, including, I believe, shooting sticks, garden ornaments and ivory and mother-of-pearl.
That is a remarkable list which suggests a nostalgia on the part of the Chancellor for Victorian days. But while he is doing that, he raises the tax on floor coverings used in ordinary houses—and not, of course, only in council houses—and schools.
There is no reduction at all in Purchase Tax on any textile material, despite all the difficulties of Lancashire and the strong appeal that Lancashire has made against many aspects of the tax. Indeed, as if it were intended to add insult to Lancashire's injury, on the one textile product mentioned—admittedly a small one of elastic fabrics—the Government put the tax up and not down. It is typical of this Government that once again we find the tax on jewellery and ornaments going down and the tax on clothing and household materials going up.
I should like, in passing, to ask the Government whether their decision to reduce the tax on electric fires means, in spite of all that has been said about fuel efficiency in many learned reports, and the peculiarly wasteful character of electric fires, that they propose to abandon Purchase Tax altogether as an instrument for achieving greater fuel efficiency. The most glaring feature of the Chancellor's selection are that these elastic fabrics—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I point out that tax has been paid at this or higher rates on elastic fabrics for many years? It is only in recent months it was discovered that the authority under which the tax had been levied by this Government was not in fact valid, owing to an error on the part of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member.

Mr. Jay: What I was arguing at the moment was that the Government, having the opportunity of making these changes and having made many reductions in the tax on jewellery and articles of that kind, have refrained from making any reduction—as I think the Financial Secretary will agree—in any textile material whatever.
I must say—and this was the comment made by the Press on these changes—that it would appear that the Chancellor has deliberately decided to give no relief to any section of, the textile industry. It is remarkable that the Chancellor should


show such indifference to the case put forward by Lancashire and to the pleas of his hon. and right hon. Friends who represent constituencies in that part of the country. I see the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) has not joined us this afternoon to stand up for the cotton industry—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I thought the Ruling was that we were not at liberty to discuss items other than those in the Purchase Tax Orders. If I may, I am perfectly ready to answer in this debate anything to do with any matters which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is raising. But if we are to adhere to Mr. Speaker's Ruling, I do not see how I may be permitted to answer.

Mr. Jay: It is not my intention to discuss articles not included in the Schedules. But when remarking on some articles which are included, I thought we were entitled to mention the fact that others are not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I understood Mr. Speaker allowed the three Orders to be discussed together on the understanding that only articles contained in the Orders may be discussed.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: But it happens to be the fact that textiles are mentioned in one of the Orders.

Mr. Jay: I agree entirely—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There are three Orders here. In which one of them are textiles mentioned?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The only articles which could be called textiles, as I understand it, are these elastic fabrics to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Jay: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was pointing out the significance of the fact that elastic fabrics are included, but that there are no other textile materials included in these Orders. I thought I was entitled to do that.
I was going on to say that, in addition to the omission of textile materials, the Chancellor has included jewellery in the No. 2 Order. It would seem to me that his fondness for Birmingham is almost

as great as his indifference to Manchester. Sheffield also, and very properly, has benefited in the matter of silverware.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury argued, in defending the selection of these articles, that the purpose is to correct anomalies and to assist certain producers. That is certainly desirable, but it should not be the only criterion for Purchase Tax changes. Somewhere the Government should consider the housewife and the consumer. It is an outstanding mark of these changes that scarcely one of them seems to have been made with the consumer in mind. The housewife has been almost completely ignored and the whole thing decided from the point of view of bureaucratic tidiness, with an occasional eye on the producer.
It is perfectly proper that our efficient Customs and Excise Department should propose tax changes to Ministers largely from the point of view of administrative simplicity. But surely it is the duty of the Minister to look at the matter from a human and social point of view. Under this Government we always seem to get the original bureaucratic mixture served up neat. It would seem that either the Financial Secretary does not argue the social issues with his experts at all, or else he does and is defeated almost every time. Knowing how talkative he is, I would guess that the latter be the truth.
Even though the correction of anomalies were the sole and proper aim of tax policy, so far as I can see these Orders create just as many anomalies as they remove. Let us take a few examples of the tax now in force after these Orders have been made. Of course they are already in force, although we are discussing them today. Lipsticks, 75 per cent.; mirrors, 50 per cent.; eyebrow brushes and toothpicks, 25 per cent.—I admit the rates are rather a jungle, and if the Chancellor tells me I am wrong on any of these figures I shall be grateful for his correction. That is a curious example of the way by which the Chancellor is at present trying to remove anomalies.
Let me give another example, and again I hope that the Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong. Ornamental walking sticks are now 50 per cent. Umbrellas and sunshades are 25 per cent. Ordinary walking sticks made


wholly of wood are exempt. That is a curious arrangement. To quote one more, furs and perfumes are still at 75 per cent.; jewellery, 50 per cent.; candelabra—in which, of course, we know that the Lord Privy Seal takes a special interest—and garden ornaments, are 25 per cent. I do not think the Chancellor can claim that these Orders go very far in cleansing the whole Purchase Tax Schedule of anomalies.
The most objectionable feature of this batch, against which we intend to vote tonight—supported no doubt by hon. Gentlemen opposite who are keen on keeping down living costs—is the imposition of this new 25 per cent. tax on tiles, strips and blocks for laying on or fixing to—if that is the correct phrase—floors. Here the Government have had the audacity to reimpose a tax which we specifically removed in 1948 in order to lower housing costs. In those days these matters were regarded from the point of view of the consumer.
It is true, as the Financial Secretary said, that we were aware then that if this encouraged too much competition and the cutting up of linoleum into strips and so forth, some other solution would have to be found. I think I merely said at that time that there would have to be reconsideration. I did not say that the tax would necessarily have to be imposed on tiles and strips. If we accept the existence of this objection, the imposition of new taxes ontiles and strips is not the only solution. The obvious alternative is to remove the tax from the linoleum and certain other types of flooring materials with which these strips are competing. That indeed was what we considered at the time, and we intended to carry out as soon as general tax reliefs became possible. [Interruption.] I hope that it will be remembered that in the 1951 Budget both defence and social service expenditure were rising rather steeply.
The Financial Secretary suggested again today, as he did in November, that that was quite impossible because the remission of tax on all floor coverings would cost £17 million. He said £15 million last November. That surely, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) points out, includes the revenue from carpets. If linoleum and some of the

other cheaper floor coverings such as felts and mattings were exempted without carpets, the cost, so far as I can remember—perhaps we can be told later—would be something more of the order of £3 million or £4 million or £5 million. I should have thought that that would have been the right course, on the assumption that we could not go so far as to exempt carpets altogether, which is probably what the hon. Gentleman wishes to do.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Jay: However, it must surely be at least as easy to maintain the tax on carpets and not on linoleum as it has been for all these years to maintain it on linoleum and not on tiles and strips.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman has constantly referred to me. He said that I am in a muddle about this matter. However, the £17 million to which my right hon. Friend referred as being the total yield from floor coverings is overwhelmingly contributed to by carpets and by linoleum, which are all floor coverings. The yield from the two is more than equal. That is not in line with the figures the right hon. Gentleman is giving the House now.

Mr. Jay: That is precisely what I was saying. The great bulk of the revenue comes from linoleum and carpets. I differ from the hon. Gentleman on this if he says it is half and half.

Mr. Nabarro: I said approximately.

Mr. Jay: My memory of the figures is that the exemption of linoleum would have cost less than half, with the retention of tax on carpets.

Mr. Nabarro: I said approximately.

Mr. Jay: I think the hon. Gentleman has now got it clear. There is some case, surely, on the general lines of the D Scheme for exempting linoleum and cheaper floor materials, even if we do not go so far as to exempt carpets in the same way.
Similarly with the elastic fabrics, is there not some case for extending the exemption to get rid of the anomaly, instead of reimposing the tax, even if the Financial Secretary may be right in saying that it has been paid in recent years? After all, a large number of industrial fabrics are already exempt. Would


it not really have been possible in this case for the Chancellor to have got rid of this anomaly, to have given a little more relief, and to have made some gesture of sympathy with Lancashire in its difficulties at the present time, by extending the exemption which we introduced some years ago?
For all these reasons, although we do not oppose the reductions in tax in these Orders, we condemn the tax increases in Order No. 1 both on floor coverings and on the fabrics because they take no account of (the interests of the consumer, because they tend to raise living costs rather than reduce them, because they are all the more provocative to the housewife at a time when the tax on jewellery has for the second time come down, and because they are a rebuff to all the feeling that exists in Lancashire about the Purchase Tax at present, in response to which the Chancellor has done absolutely nothing at all.

4.54 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I rise because, in earlier debates, I have drawn attention to the problems of the jewellery and silverware industries, and I should like to tell my right hon. Friends how pleased all Members who represent the City of Birmingham, and those also, I am sure, who represent the City of Sheffield, feel that something has been done further to reduce the burden of Purchase Tax on groups 26 and 27.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) referred to the jewellery trade a number of times in his speech, and seemed to speak as though that was a typical luxury trade that should be placed very low in the queue for priorities in tax reduction. I would tell him, in the first place, that no trade is a luxury trade to those who take part in it and earn their living by it. If he had made that speech in the City of Birmingham, in any part of the city, he would not have got a very good reception.
In the second place, I would say to him that no trade is a luxury to an hon. Member in whose constituency that trade is represented, and I can assure him that there are many hon. Members on his side of the House who are as interested as I am in this trade, and that a Motion I moved on this subject last March

received warm support from both sides of the House and was seconded by his hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt).

Mr. S. Silverman: I am following the hon. Gentleman's point with great interest and sympathy, and I hope that he will make a similar speech tomorrow night when we are debating the Anglo-Japanese Trade Agreement. In the meantime, since he talks of the reception my right hon. Friend would have got if he had spoken in Birmingham about a luxury trade, as the hon. Gentleman says he did, what sort of a reception does he think the Economic Secretary to the Treasury would have got in Nelson or Colne if he had made his announcement about the Japanese Agreement in my constituency?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not think I should be in order if I followed that interjection very closely, but if I am lucky enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye tomorrow night, I think I shall be able to show that the Japanese Trade Agreement has been well received by the City of Birmingham.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is having it all his own way.

Sir E. Boyle: If the right hon. Member for Battersea, North looks up the debate we had last March, he will find that his hon. Friend the Member for Aston devoted his speech to criticism of the Purchase Tax on jewellery, and said:
I suggest only that the rate of tax should be more comparable with that paid by other trades in the country, and that it should not be what I think can only be described as a penal rate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 372.]

Mr. Jay: I would make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I was not opposing the reduction of tax on jewellery. I was only criticising the Chancellor for selecting this reduction and omitting to make any other equally important or more important reductions which he might have made.

Sir E. Boyle: If the right hon. Gentleman was not opposing the reduction of tax on jewellery, he was certainly damning it with very faint praise. I think that that must have been the impression of any one who listened to his speech.
It is too early, of course, to say what the full effect of this reduction of tax


has been, but from such inquiries as I have been able to make there is no doubt that it is already having a very beneficial effect in getting rid of large-scale tax evasion that was going on in the jewellery trade. I pointed out, when I spoke on this subject last March, that manufacturers of diamond rings were finding it very difficult indeed to sell rings costing more than £5 or £6 because of the enormous amount of tax evasion that was going on, through retailers selling what purported to be secondhand rings and were nothing of the kind. I have no doubt at all that this tax reduction will help the manufacturers producing rings, and do a great deal to get rid of tax evasion.
I fear that the craft section of the industry and of the silverware trade will still be in rather a bad way. I have always thought myself that one could overstate the extent to which Purchase Tax, by itself, affected these craft industries, though it certainly has been one factor among others, and I do not think one wants to be too optimistic where they are concerned. So far as they go, these reductions will be very welcome indeed. I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon them, and, as I have said, I am sure that in all parts of the City of Birmingham, and in Sheffield as well, they will be welcomed by men of all parties.

5.0 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: It is very difficult to make a coherent speech on these Purchase Tax Orders this afternoon because they reflect only a very incoherent policy. Quite frankly, after listening to the remarks of the Financial Secretary, I am more bewildered than ever in trying to understand what the Government are up to.
When these Orders were published some weeks ago, a wide range of trade interests and newspapers in this country asked the same question as I am asking this afternoon. What do these Orders set out to do? What sort of reason is there for producing them at this unusual time?
I must say that I had a great deal of sympathy with the comments of the "Manchester Guardian" of 5th January, when, in a most damning leading article about these Orders, it said:
There is no sign of considered policy in these concessions.

I do not think that the explanation we have received this afternoon gives us any sign of that considered policy.
In our last discussions on Purchase Tax in this House, we had two main complaints to make to the Chancellor. One of them was that in his Purchase Tax policy he was giving undue emphasis to the reduction in price of inessential articles and an inadequate emphasis to the reduction in price of essentials. At that time, we had reason to complain that his last Purchase Tax concessions had been made at the rate of 5s. in the £ on the wholesale price of such things as bird baths, chin straps, furs and perfumes, at 3s. 4d. in the £ on paper doyleys, cake ornaments, bead curtains and gramophone records, and only at the rate of 1s. 8d. in the £ on goods which were of the greatest essentiality in the home.
In these Orders we have a continuation of that process. Indeed, it is carried even further, despite the protests which were made from both sides of the House in the last Budget debates that essential articles such as clothing were being ignored, and that if the Government had any money to give away—and these concessions involve some millions of pounds—they ought to give it in other directions.
The second complaint which we made to the Chancellor at that time was in connection with the very difficult problem of a rebate for retailers on tax-paid stocks. If the right hon. Gentleman speaks in this debate, I hope he will say something about the matter, because I was one of those who, in the last Budget debates, moved a Clause dealing with the rebate of Purchase Tax for retailers.
It could be argued that these Orders are the Government's way of meeting our complaints at that time, that Purchase Tax reductions confronted retailers with very serious loss on tax-paid stocks. I was told at the time that the Clause I moved was not a practical Clause. The suggestion was made from the benches opposite that one way of meeting the problem would be for the Chancellor to make unexpected Purchase Tax concessions at different times in the year so as to avoid the usual pre-Budget slump in trade, which not only hits the retailers, but also hits the producing industries right along the production line.
It may be, though we have not been told this by the Financial Secretary this afternoon, that the introduction of these Orders is the way in which the Chancellor has decided to meet the rebate problem. If that is so, then the right hon. Gentleman has only remedied one complaint by very much intensifying the other. What he is, in fact, telling us is that these will be the only Purchase Tax concessions this year, and that so far as Purchase Tax is concerned Lancashire and textiles have "had it."
I think the House is entitled to know whether this is the Chancellor's purpose. It really is not good enough for the Financial Secretary, when asked a serious question on this point, and one which retailers, trade papers and trade interests have been asking, namely, whether this is the sum total of the Purchase Tax concessions for this year, and whether they are being made at this time for any particular reason, merely to say, "We are making them now because we think it an appropriate moment to make them."
The burden of our complaint this afternoon is that with regard to the two main attacks which we made on the Chancellor in the last Purchase Tax debate—attacks made from both sides of the House—he has, by these Orders, intensified those complaints. He has intensified uncertainty. As the "Manchester Guardian" said in the leader to which I have already referred:
Mr. Butler's sudden generosity to a few may even stimulate hopes in the many.
It. went on to say:
Outside the particularly favoured trades, the customary pre-Budget slump may very well be intensified.
That is a most serious thing for Lancashire and for the textile trades which have suffered from this uncertainty, and which are suffering from many other blows inflicted by the Government during the last few months. Therefore, let us have the blessing of certainty, even if that certainty carries with it a death knell to Lancashire's hopes. At the moment, we have the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, we have the uncertainty, and, on the other hand, the lack of concessions to Lancashire.
I ask the Chancellor to explain these Orders a little more fully today and in the context of the Government's whole

economic policy. The more we study that policy, the more bewildered we become. What are we trying to do to our economy? Again, I agree with the "Manchester Guardian" when it says:
It is hard to see expediency, let alone equity, in this curious list of goods on which these big tax concessions have been made.
What sort of economic message is going out to the country this afternoon from this piece of Government policy? Are we now really telling the country that we are going to curb inflation at home and are going to win our export drive by protecting and encouraging luxury industries and sacrificing essential industries? We have had a remarkable catalogue of examples in that direction. Just before Christmas we had a great move by this Government to protect that vastly important industry conducted by two firms in this country who grow hot house grapes. The Government increased the horticultural tariff on cheaper grapes coming from abroad. They did this to protect an inessential industry and one which is certainly not vital to the economy of the country.
Now we have another Purchase Tax concession on jewellery, fancy goods and knick-knacks of one sort or another without any adequate explanation for giving it. What does Lancashire and a key industry like the textile industry in Lancashire get out of the Government? It gets the full blast of Japanese competition and no kind of Purchase Tax concession. This is really another message to Lancashire indicating the contempt with which this Government regard what some of us still consider to be one of the vital industries of this country.
When I listened to the Financial Secretary giving his reasons for the individual items, I found there was not one reason that could not equally appropriately have been applied to textiles. He is reducing by 25 per cent. the Purchase Tax on mirrors. Why? Because the trade has been adversely affected. I am willing to bet that the trade in mirrors is nowhere near as adversely affected as the trade of Lancashire will be by reason of the Japanese Trade Pact.

Mr. R. A. Butler: On a point of order. If the hon. Lady wants the proportion of Japanese goods which are to


enter this country, I will give it to the House so that hon. Members may be properly instructed on the extent of Japanese competition. If I am in order I shall be glad to give that information.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think we should discuss Japanese goods at all, but if it is the wish of the House to discuss the subject perhaps the Chancellor might give the figures. I do not think that it is in order.

Mrs. Castle: I am discussing the reasons given by the Financial Secretary for reducing Purchase Tax on certain items which are before us this afternoon. We are asked to approve these Orders; therefore, we must examine the reasons why the tax has been reduced. I was saying that one of the reasons given which applies equally to the case of Lancashire textiles is that trade in a particular item is adversely affected. May I not be allowed to relate that argument to other articles and to say that it is invalid in this case when the trade in more essential articles is also adversely affected?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Lady is asking me, I reply that Mr. Speaker made it quite clear, I gather, in a Ruling given before I came into the Chair, that we are allowed to discuss only the articles mentioned in these three Orders and not other things. To discuss Japanese goods will be out of order, and it will be even more so because the matter is to be discussed tomorrow.

Mrs. Castle: I am not in any way trying to discuss the Japanese trade pact, but whether or not the textile industry is more adversely affected than certain other items on which we are asked to make tax concessions. We are asked to make a concession of public money, so we should inquire whether we are giving that money away in a proper and useful form.
I should like to give the Chancellor another example. We were told about the case of Birmingham today. It is remarkable how Birmingham is dominating the thinking of the Government, which is pro-Birmingham and anti-Manchester. We have been told that the jewellery industry needed the healthy stimulus of these tax concessions. I would refer the Chancellor to a very interesting news

story which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" on 5th January, when these Orders were published. The story gave the opinions of Manchester retailers on the effect of the concessions. One of the opinions related to the concession on imitation jewellery.
Several Manchester shopkeepers said, according to this story, that they were astonished that the Chancellor should be making this concession at this time because Manchester shops had been having an absolute boom for many months in the sale of costume jewellery. The shopkeepers believe that the sales of imitation jewellery were probably at their peak and that all the Chancellor was doing was making a gratuitous gift by this tax concession to an industry which did not need it.
When we are asked to approve these Orders we have a right to ask the Government how the Orders fit into their economic policy. What sort of message is to go out to the wage earners of the country as the result of these Purchase Tax concessions? What kind of light are we throwing on their problems? I suggest that these Orders add to the confusion about what is to happen about Purchase Tax, that they add to the distress and confusion of retailers and to trade dislocation by increasing uncertainty, and to the confusion in the minds of the wage earners about the economic policy of the Government. I am as entitled to protest at the snub which is given to my constituency by these Orders as the hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) is entitled to congratulate himself on the gift that is given to his constituency by these Orders.
I ask the Chancellor whether these Orders, by their timing and scope mean that the Government have deliberately chosen Lancashire to be the Cinderella of their economic policy. My constituency and its cotton industry are looking back to the days of Sir Stafford Cripps as to the days of Prince Charming, while the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has become the two ugly sisters rolled into one.

5.17 p.m.

Sir Robert Boothby: I was relieved when I heard the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) say that Her Majesty's


Government had been swinging over to Birmingham and against Manchester. What has been giving me sleepless nights lately is the thought that Her Majesty's Government were abandoning the Birmingham school and cleaving to the Manchester school. To judge from the speech of the hon. Lady, the reverse is the case, and the Government are now coming back to Birmingham. That suits me down to the ground.
With regard to the timing of these Orders, it is, on the whole, better that these changes should be made in January than at the time of the Budget; but I do not think that this change of timing will solve the problem of retailers' stocks. In fact, the problems associated with changes in the Purchase Tax can never be solved, which only shows what a rotten tax it is. I hate the Purchase Tax—I want to make that clear at the outset—except on flamboyant luxuries. I am prepared to concede that on all real luxuries there should be Purchase Tax. It is, for example, quite fair to tax gold-plated containers, and those who buy them seem to be rightly assessed. As I do not want to be pernicketty or finicky in any way, I think I should add that it is reasonable to treat rolled-gold pencils as pencils.
The Purchase Tax itself is pernicious. On both sides of the House we are far too inclined to accept it as an integral part of our national life. Asa tax, particularly on household goods, I deplore it. Rightly or wrongly, I take the view that a floor is a necessity—for me, at any rate. We must have floors. I have no personal interest in this matter, but I should like to point out that there is a flooring called Windsor flooring, now manufactured in this country.

Mrs. Jean Mann: There is a more important thing, and that is Kirkcaldy flooring.

Sir R. Boothby: The hon. Lady is talking about linoleum?

Mrs. Mann: Yes.

Sir R. Boothby: I shall have a word to say about linoleum; I would not leave linoleum out for anything, but I will start off with what seems to me to be an enormous anomaly.
There is a certain kind of wooden flooring known as Windsor flooring which was

first manufactured in this country under the stimulus of the Ministry of Health, then presided over by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). It was originally produced in Switzerland, and it is three-eighths of an inch thick. The Purchase Tax was removed in 1948, because softwoods at that time were in short supply, and we wanted to economise in the use of imported wood to the maximum possible extent. As a result a factory was built at Andover, and machinery was imported from Switzerland.
Since 1948,a quarter of a million square yards of this particular flooring have been laid at a remarkably cheap price. The wearing surface is equivalent to three-quarters of an inch of woodblock flooring, and it uses only 50 per cent. as much timber. I wish to emphasise that this is not a floor covering, but a floor. What will be the effect of this Purchase Tax Order No. 1? To avoid the tax the manufacturers will have to increase the depth—without any increase in the wearing quality—from three-eighths of an inch to five-eighths of an inch, using that much more wood. That is 66 per cent. more raw material. Yet the whole object of bringing this machinery from Switzerland and setting up the factory was to economise in the use of imported timber.
What becomes of the argument of increased productivity and lower costs for houses? The fact is—and I state it quite bluntly—that under the Order as it now stands we are exempting from tax the deep wooden floors, five-eighths of an inch thick, which the rich can afford to purchase, and subjecting to a 25 per cent. tax the equally good wearing floor which is much cheaper and which is used for the cheaper houses—not only public buildings but private houses as well. In other words, we are letting the rich off the tax, and putting it on the poor man's wooden floor.

Mr. S. Silverman: That is the Government's policy throughout.

Sir R. Boothby: Rubbish.
This is all wrong. A frightful mistake has been made. I do not know how or why, but supposing the tax were taken off wooden floors altogether, on the admission of the Financial Secretary himself it will cost only £1 million, because most


of this Purchase Tax is derived from linoleum and carpets. The Financial Secretary has an argument about cutting up linoleum into these little squares to avoid tax. I do not want to see either floors or floor coverings taxed at all; but if we have to tax floor coverings, and linoleum is getting away with it unfairly, it is surely possible to devise an Order to bring linoleum within the tax, because linoleum cannot be described as a floor. It is a floor covering. This Purchase Tax Order will undoubtedly raise the cost of houses. We cannot get away from that. The Financial Secretary says by £3 or £4. I say by £5 or £6. Whichever it be, with our tremendous and triumphant housing progress it seems madness to impose a tax at this time which will raise the cost of houses at all.
Was the Ministry of Housing and Local Government consulted beforethe Order was introduced? Did it examine the whole question? I am quite sure that it cannot really believe that this is a good Purchase Tax Order. I am equally sure that, if the Order had been carefully examined before introduction, a means could have been devised to smooth over the present admitted anomalies without raising the cost of houses generally, and without imposing a tax on this particular wooden floor, which is one of the triumphs of modern house building. To put a 25 per cent. tax on this flooring seems to me a monstrous thing to do.
I beg my right hon. Friend to follow up what the Financial Secretary has said, and to give an undertaking that he will re-examine this particular matter with great care in the light of the representations that have been and will be made to him. I myself am free from the necessity of injuring or damaging my conscience in any respect by voting with the Government in the Division Lobby, because, fortunately, I am paired with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who is at present in Berlin—where I should be. I do not have to vote on the matter, but I feel very strongly about it.
What upsets me is the feeling that the whole thing has been slapdash, ill-considered, and put forward without sufficient consultation with the highly

technical trades concerned. It is an example of inefficient administration from which Her Majesty's present Government have been singularly free up to date; but it is an exception which I deplore, and which I hope to see rectified in the immediate future.

5.27 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: Though I am glad that the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) has a conscience it would be interesting to know how that conscience would have worked if he was not paired for tonight's Division.
I wish to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), that it is absolutely essential, not only to the retail trade but to the manufacturers, that there should be some certainty as to when reliefs or changes are made in Purchase Tax. The timing of the tax reliefs at this juncture may, in some respects be good, but the trade does not know whether this is the only relief which it can expect, or whether further reliefs or changes will be made in the Budget. It is vital that the retail trade should know that there is some measure of certainty as to the timing, and that manufacturers should be able to go ahead with their programmes.
I would also emphasise the criticism of the tax which is now being levied on floor coverings—tiles in particular. It is no consolation to those who are perhaps having to buy a house; to local authorities who use many of these floor tiles—such as Marley tiles, plastic tiles and the small thin wooden blocks to which the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire has referred—to be told that this tax had to be imposed to bring those goods into line with floor coverings such as linoleum and carpets because the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. F. Maclean) brought a deputation to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer to point out that there was this difference between these kinds of floor coverings and linoleum, in which he was particularly interested. The answer is that the tax should have been taken off all floor coverings, including linoleum, and not put on the tiles.

Mr. Nabarro: What about carpets and rugs?

Mrs. Slater: We could include carpets.
We have been told of the marvellous programme and achievement in housing, but it is upon the young people who are being given new houses that the tax on floor coverings bears heaviest. They just have to buy floor coverings, which are just as essential a part of household purchases as the mirrors the Purchase Tax on which has just been reduced by the Purchase Tax (No. 2) Order.
If we continue to tax linoleum and the smaller rugs which are needed in these new houses we are, in effect, saying to these young married couples, "You must either do without comfort or you must pay more for it," just at a time when they are involved in very heavy expenditure on the new furniture which they all want to put into their new house. I add my plea to those already made to the Chancellor to reconsider the tax on floor coverings.
The tax on tiles and wood blocks is, in effect, a new tax, because it has not operated since January, 1949. We have been told that it will add something like £2 or £3 to the cost of a new house, although I am assured that it will cost more in the region of £4 or£8. That may not be very much on the individual house, but it is a considerable amount in the large housing programmes which many cities are desirous of undertaking.
In addition, many of these kinds of floor covering are being used in our new schools. We are using Marley tiles in most of the new schools in my own area. In the large new schools which are being built this added cost is an extra burden, which may mean that something else which is essential has to be cut out.
We have to remember that this new imposition is being put on at a time when the Purchase Tax on luxury commodies, such as garden ornaments and rolled-gold drinking vessels, is either being reduced or removed altogether. I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire that this tax enables the rich to get away with it, and the poor, once more, have to pay the added burden.

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Lady wishes to argue that the cost of a local authority house is going to be inflated by this additional impost on certain floor coverings, will not she be fair-minded enough to set off against any slight increase the

saving to a local authority which will flow from the reduced Purchase Tax on electrical appliances?

Mrs. Slater: That makes very little difference. I was pointing out that, although the tax may have little effect on one house, it is considerable added burden when considered in relation to large numbers of houses.
The Financial Secretary said that these Orders sought to do away with certain anomalies, and that it was sometimes found that some articles had passed through the sieve of Purchase Tax. I want to refer to the Purchase Tax (No 3) Order, which reduces the Purchase Tax on figures, vases, reliefs and busts.

Mr. Follick: And engravings.

Mrs. Slater: I have already taken up with the Financial Secretary the question of two types of vase, one which bears no tax and one which bears tax at the rate of 75 per cent. I have the vases here. I am sure that all hon. Members know what I mean when I talk about a posy ring—the little ring into which one puts flowers—or a bar. Neither of those is subject to Purchase Tax. Neither is the posy holder which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be used for anything other than a bunch of primroses, violets or very small-stemmed flowers. But the vase I have here, which is, in effect, a vase cut in two, bears a tax of 75 per cent., plus 10 per cent. uplift.
The person who can afford only the smaller type of vase is compelled to pay just 3d. less than has to be paid for alarger vase. That is an example of something which has slipped through the sieve of Purchase Tax. Yet, just because a group of people have made recommendations that the small vase should be taxed because it is not as "squat" as the double one, we must not upset their dignity by altering their recommendations when representations are made that this is an injustice because those persons who can afford to buy only a small vase are being condemned to pay a larger amount of tax.
That is in keeping with the tone of these Orders. Those who can afford to pay are getting away with it, and those who can least afford to pay are being asked to bear an added burden. I ask the Chancellor to give further considera-


tion to this question of vases and floor coverings, such as linoleum, and free them from tax if he feels that there is some need to even up the discrimination which exists at the present time.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) has obviously appreciated the truth of the maxim that an ocular demonstration is always more convincing and attractive than a mere spoken submission. I rather regret that I have not brought any exhibits with which to commend my argument to the House. I do not share all the criticisms which have been made with regard to these Orders.
I have no criticisms of the No. 2 and No. 3 Orders. I rejoice at the reductions in Purchase Tax which they have made and, unlike some hon. Members opposite, I do not regret a reduction in these items of tax merely because it has not been possible to make a simultaneous reduction in certain others; nor do I agree with the criticism made by hon. Members opposite about timing. As I understand it, the timing of this particular type of order is helpful to the difficult and apparently almost insoluble problem of retailers' stocks when there is a cut in Purchase Tax.
I now turn to the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order, with which I am most concerned. With regard to its main substance, I am able without difficulty to confine my enthusiasm within the bounds of decorum. I found the matter of gold-plated metal a little too rarefied for consolation one way or the other. I was glad to hear from my hon. Friend that the third matter dealt with in the Order, that of elastic fabrics, was merely the correction of a mistake.
My disappointment is focused on the question of the tax on flooring. As the House knows, there was no exemption for floor coverings originally in the Eighth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1948, but that was very quickly amended by a Statutory Instrument which exempted strips or tiles not exceeding 450 square inches, a figure presumably calculated to give exemption to the normal size of 18 inches by 24 inches. The Finance Act of that year came into

force on 30th July and the Statutory Instrument on 5th November, so that the tax was in force only for a very short time.
In this case, unusually enough, my right hon. Friend's little finger is proving thicker than Sir Stafford Cripps's loins because my right hon. Friend is imposing Purchase Tax on something from which Sir Stafford Cripps shrank from imposing it at that time. In the general context, it is unfortunate that at a time when one would wish to see a retreat from Purchase Tax on essential commodities there should be any reversal of that tendency.
My hon. Friend did not say much about the revenue aspect of the matter when he commended the Order to the House, but in any Purchase Tax matter revenue is a salient point. My hon. Friend was good enough tosay, in answer to my question, that about £1 million might be expected from the imposition of the tax in a financial year. The sum is difficult to assess because in any Purchase Tax calculation one cannot be sure how much of the demand will be diverted to some other material or substance by reason of the imposition of the tax. I was not sure whether the £1 million assumed the same consumption as when there was no liability for Purchase Tax; but, in any event, it is a very small proportion of the £17 million which my right hon. Friend gave as the total Purchase Tax on the various floor coverings.
It is obvious that the amount of linoleum which ranks competitively with the tiles and other floor coverings which are now brought under the tax is also very small. My right hon. Friend was right when he enunciated the principle that competing floor coverings should pay the same rate of tax, so far as they have to pay tax at all. He drew the picture of a competition at the top level between parquet flooring, carpets and high quality linoleum and at the lower level between tiles and cheap linoleum.
Disappointing as it may be, I believe it is necessary in present circumstances to maintain the Purchase Tax on those materials at the top level of competition, which accounts for by far the greater part of the £17 million; but regarding the competition at the lower level, it would seem in principle that it would be better to see


whether both could not be exempted if an adjustment is necessary to bring them into correct competition.
Wood block flooring, apart from the special case to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) so eloquently referred, is probably not very much affected, because the ordinary wood floor is far more expensive than the sort of floorings with which the House is concerned in this Order, and even with the added Purchase Tax, it would not pay anybody to substitute normal wood floor coverings for the tile coverings.

Sir R. Boothby: It is the additional Purchase Tax which will knock out the cheap wood flooring. Without the Purchase Tax, the cheap wood flooring is an economical and widely used material. The 25 per cent. tax will bring it to the level of the most expensive floorings and will knock it out.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The special case to which my hon. Friend refers comes into that category, although floor coverings generally come into the top level category, which he and I agree must be left under Purchase Tax in present circumstances.
My right hon. Friend said that the intention here was that tax should fall on floor coverings and not on floorings. That is an admirable intention, but it is a little difficult to apply in practice, as he candidly admitted. For example, there is the flooring or floor covering called mastic asphalt, which is a composition material. When it is put on the floor it becomes integrated with the structure and, consequently, does not bear Purchase Tax.
These are very difficult principles to apply in practice. The difficulty is similar to that encountered when considering what sort of building work should be subject to a licence. If linoleum is gummed down, that is licensable work and one commits a criminal offence if one does it without a licence, but if the linoleum is tacked down, it is non-licensable work. My right hon. Friend is trying to apply the same rather fine metaphysical distinction in this case.
The question of mastic asphalt is important. In some cases it may be that the result of imposing Purchase Tax on

floor coverings will be to divert demand not to a taxed linoleum, as my hon. Friend suggested, but to non-taxed mastic asphalt. Mastic asphalt is really an industrial floor covering, but in present circumstances it is used a good deal in local authority houses. If one of the effects of the Order is to increase the use of what I should have thought was a fundamentally less attractive and less suitable floor covering for local authority or other houses, it would be a regrettable outcome.
A good deal has been said about the financial effect. My right hon. Friend put the figure for a local authority house at between £2 and £3.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I said £3 or £4.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I should have thought that even that was almost certainly an under-estimate. My right hon. Friend did not specify the figures on which his estimate was based. I have here some figures for a small private enterprise house which can reasonably be adjusted to give the proportionate figures for a local authority house.
In the case of a house of 1,000 superficial feet in area, which is the average non-luxury private enterprise house under Government licence, there would be an area to be floored of about 470 square feet, taking the ground floor only. At 11s. a square yard that works out at £28 12s. which is £7 3s. in terms of Purchase Tax. The local authority figure would, of coure, be lower than that for two reasons. First, the superficial area would be rather smaller and, second, a cheaper quality of tile would probably be used. Even taking the figures at 44 square yards instead of 52 and 9s. instead of 11s. we get a cost of about £20, which in terms of Purchase Tax means about £5.
Those are not large figures, but I think that my right hon. Friend most probably under-estimated the financial consequences. Although the amounts are not large it is, in my view, regrettable that at the present time anything should be done to increase the cost of house building and to give the impression that it does not matter very much if we take a step which may be calculated to have that effect.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend deal with the perfectly sensible argument which I used against the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater),


that while there may be a very slight increase on account of tiles, we have to set against that the decline in cost arising from the reduction of Purchase Tax on electrical appliances.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend does not have to explain that the arguments used by him are sensible ones because I always assume that in the face of any clear evidence to the contrary. I am in favour of the reduction of Purchase Tax on electrical appliances. I am generally in favour of all reductions of Purchase Tax on things which are necessities or near-necessities, but that is not part of the actual cost of house building.
I am suggesting to the House that it is unfortunate at a time when it is vital to keep down the cost of house building that any step should be taken which may increase it, because although the housing figures are very much more satisfactory than in 1948, when the exemption was granted, the cost of house building is still a very urgent problem. That applies both to local authority houses and to private enterprise houses.
In the case of local authority housing it is necessary to try to keep the cost down, not least to save cost on the subsidy. So far as private housing is concerned, it is vital to keep the cost down so as to extend the range of people who can afford to buy such houses. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take into account the possible saving on subsidies if costs can be reduced, which has to be balanced against the very trivial amount of tax which is expected from this Order.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I see a good deal to criticise in this Order, although I accept the principle of the competitive equality of taxation which my right hon. Friend has announced. I shall, therefore, vote for the Order because I think that that principleis basically right, although I think its application in this case is unfortunate. I certainly hope that this will be the last Order which the House is asked to approve providing for an increase in Purchase Tax on any commodity which is a basic ingredient in house building when it is so vitally necessary to reduce the cost of houses in the interests of the nation.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I should be the last person to blame the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) for voting with his party. That is a thing which we all do from time to time against our consciences. What I do blame him for is not having the good grace to retire into a corner and weep instead of blazoning the fact to the House that, after the devastating speech which he has made against the No. 1 Order, he is still going to support it. It seems to be an astonishing point of view in one who has a great reputation as an authority on housing that he should have subjected the Order to such an analysis and, having pointed out so clearly for everyone's benefit the effect that it is going to have on housing and the cost of housing, should then announce that he is going to support it. That, I confess, fills me with a good deal of alarm and despondency as to the hon. Member's future.
I do not speak on behalf of any vested interests. I have no constituency interest in the producers' side; I am merely representing an area where the local authority has in fact used this flooring for all its houses. It has done so because it has been encouraged to do so, and as a result it has found that this is a most satisfactory way of flooring houses. Now, having launched on that arrangement, having prepared its plans, having based its housing programme on the use of this type of flooring, it is faced for no apparent reason which anyone on either side of the House has been able to explain with an increase in taxation on something which is a standard part of housing.
I do not pretend to be a financial or technical expert and I cannot go into all the arguments as to whether it is easy or difficult to make a distinction between this type of flooring and other types of floor covering, but I feel that the ordinary local authority which is trying to wrestle with these problems and trying particularly to deal with the problem of keeping down rents at a time like this will think that this is a stab in the back from the Treasury at a time when local authorities are being led on with carrots by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
The right hon. Gentleman's explanation is that, after all, this is a very small amount. I think that shows that the


Government are getting themselves into a pretty parlous state when they are reduced to using the conventional form of explaining away a bastard. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has given an under-estimate. I think that the additional cost is as much as £8 and, even if it is £4, that is about a penny a week on rents.
That is only one factor to be taken into account. Every local authority is having a very serious problem to face in trying to keep rents down. This problem will be even more serious if and when the Government's housing proposals for slum clearance are launched. The problem of housing the person at present living in a slum and paying a very low rent will become a very acute and difficult one.
I should have thought that this was the least opportune time to choose to do anything, however small, to put a tax on an essential part of a house. It may be that there are technical difficulties, I do not know, in distinguishing a flooring from a floor covering. I should have thought that the simplest criterion was not that of thickness, because the fallacy behind that is that it is discriminating against more modern types of flooring, when in fact, owing to the use of modern research and scientific improvements in house building, it is possible to get a good result by using less materials. That, I should have thought, was something to be encouraged.
Here is something which is modern and a contribution to building materials which has proved to be effective and is in fact used by progressive local authorities all over the country. I should have thought that the least that the right hon. Gentleman could have done would have been to encourage them to use this flooring, instead of which he is adopting this savage method of imposing a tax to prevent them from doing so.
I should have thought that the test of whether a thing was a floor or a floor covering was whether it was taken away when anyone moved from the house. If it is permanently part of the house, if it is put in by the local authority which builds the house and is not bought by the tenant coming in and taken away by the tenant going out, that would be, to my lay mind, an adequate definition of a floor. I do not believe, therefore, that

the right hon. Gentleman and his Department have seriously considered the effect that this will have on people who really care about housing.
It is not so much a question of the amount that it is involved, although we cannot put pennies here and there on the rent. What is much more important is the matter of principle, that the Government should go out of their way, not simply to leave on a tax, which would be bad enough, but to impose a new tax on a modern, efficient and well-tried system of flooring. That is indefensible and I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think further about it. Surely, the argument from his own party, if not from this side of the House, must be sufficient to convince him that something is seriously wrong and to cause him to think long and hard before he presses the matter to a vote.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: Not often do I find myself in agreement with hon. Members opposite, but I found myself a little in agreement with the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) when she suggested that the imposition of the tax on flooring tiles is a retrogressive step. I have no interest in this matter except as a consumer of floorings, both privately, as we all are, and in my business, but I want to confine my remarks briefly to the No. 1 Order and to relate them to the question of flooring tiles.
My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary indicated that the affirmative procedure in connection with the Order is because it imposes or reimposes a tax burden. It is an admirable example of such Orders, because they provide by this procedure an opportunity for the fullest discussion, for some of us to register our objections, and sometimes they provide for second thoughts. I was hoping that on this occasion my right hon. Friend might have had second thoughts in regard to the Order.
Having said all that, I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) in that I intend to go into the Lobby in support of my right hon. Friend. I am able to justify that because I should prefer to see my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box on this side of the House than some of those who might be taking his place in other


circumstances. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) very strongly urged, except for this unfortunate lapse—and it is an unfortunate lapse—we on this side of the House are well pleased with the financial improvements that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Two principal reasons have been advanced in justification of this tax. First, it is said that in the interests of equity in relation to other like products, there should be a tax upon thermo-plastic tiles and that kind of thing. Second, it is suggested that evasion is rife. I want to look at both these reasons and to see how much or how little is in them.
In regard to equity, it is said that linoleum manufacturers at a time of ample supplies are penalised and subjected to unfair competition. Is that, in fact, the case? Are thermo-plastic tiles really comparable with linoleum? My view is that they are not interchangeable except for limited uses. Who nowadays would use linoleum in place of thermo-plastic tiles, for example, in a kitchen or any place in which work is carried out in damp conditions or involving water? I suggest that thermo-plastic tiles are not competitive with linoleum, for example, in a hospital. They may be used in place of linoleum on some occasions, but the difference is that the thermo-plastic tile is a permanent feature of the building in which it is used, while linoleum is movable and, therefore, a fitting.
It might be equally logical to tax concrete or bricks, because they too are parts of the structure, as, indeed, are the plastic tiles which are used for flooring. Plastic tiles are much more comparable with the bituminous and semi-liquid floors that are laid and which still remain free of tax. When one considers that that is the case, the argument for equity completely disappears, because there is no equity when mastic asphalt and things of that kind still remain tax-free. It is clear, as has already been pointed out, that earlier Regulations clearly intended both mastic floors and things of this nature to remain free of tax, because they are part of the permanent structure.
In regard to evasion, manufacturers have cut up linoleum into small sections

so that they may avoid paying tax. That is ingenious. It is perfectly legitimate, and wherever there is taxation, brains will always be used to find the proper and legitimate means of avoiding payment of it. That is a tribute to the manufacturers rather than a criticism of them. Linoleum cutting up may be wasteful, but it is not half as wasteful as the use of the five-eighths of an inch, or a greater thickness than the five-eighths, tile that will now become used and which will involve the wasteful use of a good deal of imported raw material.
I cannot altogether agree with my right hon. Friend when he suggests that the cost may be only £3 a house. I have figures which indicate that in one local authority housing undertaking 28 houses will cost an average of £6 15s. more owing to the tax. But it is not only on house-building that this tax burden will fall quite heavily. I have two more examples. A Territorial Army drill centre, which surely is in line with our defence effort, will cost an extra £269. I have figures for schools and other buildings, and I feel that my right hon. Friend in making his estimate has not given full weight to the extra cost of the Purchase Tax on some of these undertakings.
We are within two months of the Budget statement, and I hope that between now and then my right hon. Friend will reconsider this matter and especially will consider its best solution, which, in my view, is the removal of Purchase Tax on linoleum, however difficult it is to differentiate between floor coverings of this kind. In conclusion, I urge that the Chancellor give full weight to the remarks of my hon. Friends and, indeed, of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and will reconsider the position.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman answer me this question? He has made a devastating argument against the Orders. Are we to understand that despite that, when the Division takes place, he will support them?

Mr. Hudson: I am perfectly willing to answer that question, and I did answer it in my opening remarks. I indicated that my right hon. Friends who now occupy the Treasury Bench have made an excellent job of the financial affairs


of this country, and I would much sooner see them remain there than contemplate the possibility of a change.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I regret very much that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. W. R. A. Hudson) concluded his speech, with which I agreed except for the last few sentences, by advocating a course which we cannot accept. I hope he will excuse me if I do not follow him into the arguments on the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order, and, if I might be excused an outrageous pun, I would say that I could find no flaws in the arguments adduced against this Purchase Tax Order.
My concern is to say, very briefly, what my reaction and the reactions of the trades concerned are to some of the arguments on the Purchase Tax (No. 2) Order. As I have made, privately and in the House, quite a number of representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Financial Secretary concerning the Purchase Tax on silverware and cutlery, I think it is only right that I should welcome the reduction that has been made. I would say, without wanting to weary the House, that if these trades come forward, like Oliver Twist, asking for more, the Chancellor will recognise that they do so for the same reason as Oliver Twist—they are finding themselves in distressed economic circumstances.
I should like to make a special point of drawing the Chancellor's attention to paragraph 6 of the No. 2 Order, which is concerned with the concessions to Group 28. I have previously argued that mother-of-pearl and ivory should not be included in that particular Order, which is mainly concerned with semiprecious stones. I can find no reason for assuming that mother-of-pearl is a semi-precious stone. I do not want to delay the House with lengthy arguments on this, because it has already been demonstrated to the Financial Secretary by actual exhibition by people better qualified than I am to do it.
The actual shell, which comprises the mother-of-pearl used in manufacturing, can be cut up in a number of different ways to make the most economic use of the shell. To insist on a special rate of tax for articles of mother-of-pearl

puts a very great handicap on the export trade of mother-of-pearl handles. This particular tax on semi-precious stones means that the less favourable parts of the shell, which cannot be used for cutlery and similar purposes, have to be thrown away because Purchase Tax prevents the ready sale of articles like egg spoons and so on, which could be made from the less suitable portions of the shell.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to draw the Chancellor's special attention to the problem of mother-of-pearl, which was explained to him previously at length and, I know, was actually demonstrated by people from Sheffield who are concerned with mother-of-pearl. We do not object to tax on articles containing mother-of-pearl if that category of article attracts tax. What we do contend is that mother-of-pearl by itself should not attract tax to an article which would be untaxed or taxed at a lower rate if it had not some portion of mother-of-pearl upon it.
As one who has consistently suggested to the Chancellor—and I welcomed the special provisions that were in the last Finance Act for the purpose—that there should be more variations of Purchase Tax throughout the financial year, I should like to say a word about the timing of these Orders. I think it would be very wrong if every 1st January or Budget day comes to be the reckoningtime on the part of business people for changes in Purchase Tax. Purchase Tax, although it is a bad tax, is likely to be with us for some time, and it should be viewed not only as a fiscal instrument to raise revenue, but should also be reviewed from time to time in the light of the economic consequences of the tax on a particular article. If it can be shown at any time in the financial year that, because of changed circumstances, the tax is having a specially adverse effect on an industry, then it is right and proper for an Order to be brought in to amend the tax. I commend the Chancellor's reduction of the tax on the silverware and cutlery industry as far as it goes, and congratulate him on introducing the Orders before the Budget.
Finally, I commend to the right hon. Gentleman's attention for future occasions the fact that the cutlery and silverware trades are the only trades producing what


I regard as absolute essentials which are still subject to tax. I will not waste the time of the House by repeating arguments I have endeavoured to explain to hon. Members before, but I will say this, that no matter what may be the economic circumstances of an individual I regard the knife, fork and spoon as articles of essential use. I suggest they should be freed from tax, and I hope that this will be borne in mind in a future Budget.

6.18 p.m.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his remarks, but I want to say a word or two about the No. 1 Order, which refers to thermoplastic tiles. In 1948, these tiles were exempt from the tax on floor covering because at that time, apparently, they were not in competition with linoleum and other floor coverings. Since then there has been a great deal more linoleum available, and it can be cut into strips, made into tiles and compete with firms making thermoplastic tiles.
In my opinion these tiles are not floor coverings at all, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider them from the point of view of what is a floor covering. A floor covering is something which can be picked up and shaken out of a window, or which can be taken to another house if a person is moving, articles like carpets, cork matting, rubber matting, linoleum and similar things.

Mr. James Carmichael: Whoever shakes linoleum out of a window?

Brigadier Clarke: I might shake the hon. Member out of the window.

Mr. Carmichael: That is violence.

Brigadier Clarke: These tiles are attached to a floor and cannot be moved. They are part of the house, and therefore, to all intents and purposes, they are not a floor covering at all. They are the means of putting a floor into a house, and on top of them floor covering is laid. That is the technical difference between these two articles.
It seems to me that the Government are extremely foolish—at this time—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—I said, at

this time, to raise the cost of a house by between £4 and £8 by putting on this tax. A considerable number of houses are going up in my constituency with this type of tile on the floors. I thought it was the policy of this Government to try to keep down the cost of housing to a minimum. In the circumstances, it is absurd that, just because people have cut up linoleum and other things, a tax should be put on tiles fixed to the floor.
If the Government want to stop people cutting up linoleum, rubber matting and other things, surely the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary can find a way of stopping them doing this without putting on an additional tax? I thought it was the policy of the Conservative Party to take taxes off, not to introduce new ones. Tiles do not compete with linoleum, rubber matting or cork matting, but they do compete with bitumen and other substances that can be spread on the floor, and it is unfair to tax them in the same way as cork linoleum and rubber when they are in competition with something quite different.
Also, these tiles provide a considerable export trade and their cost cannot be kept down to a point at which they are easily exportable unless there is a reasonable home market for them. It is absurd for the Government to spoil one of our export industries by imposing a tax where one was not imposed previously by a Socialist Government.
I have no intention of voting against the Government tonight—[An Hon. Member: "Throwing stones."] Far worse monstrosities were thrown by supporters of the Socialist Government. I ask my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to think again on this matter and not to worry about what the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) did in 1948—

Mr. Jay: May I point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that my speech then, recommending exemption, was commended today by the Financial Secretary as lucid?

Brigadier Clarke: I have heard many speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, but I have never heard him say anything yet that was worth memorising. However, I looked up that debate and I saw that the right hon. Gentleman exempted these


tiles from tax at the time and that he was criticised. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be big enough to admit that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North was right for once and that he will exempt these tiles today.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: It is not my intention to detain the House for more than two minutes, but, as I interviewed the Minister and also made statements in this House regarding certain articles on which the imposition of Purchase Tax constituted an anomaly, I want to express my appreciation of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has been able to remove the tax from some of them. For instance, I could never understand why Purchase Tax should be applied to an egg-timer because it was artistically decorated, or because a little hand-bell was in the shape of a lady or because a knocker was decorated, or because a corkscrew was made into a model dog.
While we all wish to see Purchase Tax reduced on many essential household goods, we must remember that the factories making such articles, especially in Birmingham, employ men who would be out of work if these things could not be exported. Therefore those firms are grateful for this reduction in the tax on these small articles which, if not essential, decorate some of our homes. I hope it is a forerunner of a reduction of tax on other domestic articles, so I say to the Chancellor, "Thank you very much for the concessions, and I hope you have more in store when the Budget comes along."

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: A great deal of our discussion today has revolved around the question of floor coverings, and therefore it might not be inappropriate if the voice of the carpet industry were heard in so far as it has a bearing on the impost that the Chancellor has made on certain types of floor coverings. I shall be the first hon. Member on either side of the House to defend the action taken by the Chancellor in this regard.
Much as I dislike Purchase Tax on any form of floor covering, I think that if we are to have the tax, there should be reasonable equality in its incidence

and application to all types of floor coverings. I could never understand why the great bulk of these floor coverings manufactured in this country—carpets, rugs, linoleum and so on—were subject to a Purchase Tax which was at the rate of 33⅓ per cent. but was reduced in the last Budget to 25 per cent., whereas a minority of the goods in this classification were exempt from the tax, for one reason or another. In that regard, I believe that the reference in the Schedule to Order No. 1, placing a Purchase Tax of 25 per cent. on those floor coverings formerly omitted, is a wise and equitable step.
With that, however, my general support of the Orders must cease, because there is one item about which I am somewhat dubious. I refer to the decision to reduce, in discriminatory fashion, the Purchase Tax on electric space heaters. This is a complicated, technical andfinancial argument which I shall not attempt this evening to cover in any detail. Suffice it to say that the decision of the Socialist Government in 1948 to take violently discriminatory fiscal action against the use of electric space heaters and the imposition of 100 per cent. Purchase Tax on them, because of the interference caused at that time by power cuts and the loss of industrial production, was a right decision. It was not only a right decision because of the question of power cuts but it was alsoa right decision because of the overriding importance of conserving coal for export.
Electric space heaters are notoriously wasteful of coal. Yesterday there was a certain amount of jubilation when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power announced that there had been hardly any power cuts this winter, in spite of the severe weather of the last few weeks. Yes, we have avoided power cuts in that period, but only by a tiny margin, and only by bringing into operation every generating set in every power house in the country. A minority of those generating sets were the very old ones which burn coal at an excessively wasteful rate. In fact, those old sets are only used during periods of peak demand, and it is during that very peak demand—in fact it often causes the peak—that electric fires are burned in a very large number of homes in this country.
I shall not go into details, but I should like the Chancellor to look at


appendix number 20 on page 213 of the Fifth Annual Report of the British Electricity Authority for the year 1952–53. In the top table, and in the right-hand column, there is set out the efficiency with which power stations were operated in the last full year of the Authority's activities. In the last line of that table, under the description "under 10 per cent. efficiency,"it will be seen that quite an appreciable part of the total power station output came from these very old generating sets of extremely low efficiency.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: On a point of order. Has anything connected with electric space heaters anything to do with these Orders?

Mr. Speaker: Order No. 2 reduces the tax on electric space heaters. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has made his point, which is perfectly relevant to the matter under consideration, but it would not support an analysis of the efficiency of power stations and, having made that point, I think that the hon. Member should be content with having put it to the House.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, and I promise that I shall not exploit that point. I merely say to the Chancellor that his overriding requirement is surely to increase exports and, above all, to increase the export of the only commodity that has a 100 per cent. conversion value, which is coal. By the proposal which is now before us the Chancellor, in my view—although I may be ploughing a lonely furrow in this debate—is stimulating the sale of a type of appliance which, when used at peak hours, is notoriously wasteful of coal. I should like the Chancellor to consider that point.
In similar fashion to many of my hon. Friends who have criticised certain aspects of the Orders, I find myself in a special difficulty. If electric space heaters formed the subject of an Order on their own, I would have no hesitation in pronouncing what my action would be tonight, but unfortunately electric space heaters have been put in very craftily by the Treasury with six other categories of goods for Purchase Tax reduction. For example, one of those is concerned with

jewellery, in relation to which there has been a reduction of Purchase Tax, thus helping to stimulate trade in the city of Birmingham. I happen to be a resident of that city. I find it very difficult, therefore, on the one hand to oppose just one part of the Order and on the other to support the remainder of it.
I conclude with this simple statement of undeniable fact. If we want to raise our coal exports the Chancellor's economic policy must be directed to that end, and economic policy includes appropriate fiscal provisions. I would have no hesitation in taking all necessary and discriminatory fiscal action against any equipment which, in the course of its use, is responsible for wasting coal. Electric fires fall into that category.

6.36 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: The Chancellor's heart must have been warmed to find that he had one friend in all Israel in the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), but he must have been disappointed as the hon. Member continued his speech.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who opened the debate, took pride in the fact that he was removing certain anomalies. But these Orders introduce a new anomaly. I wonder what kind of metaphysical speculation led the Treasury to decide the thickness at which a floor covering becomes a floor. The whole of the debate has shown how serious the matter is. While the taxing of a dog with a corkscrew tail may be a joke, the taxing of a floor because it is thin enough to be regarded as a floor covering is serious indeed. I hope that the Chancellor will withdraw the Order which imposes this new tax on floor covering.
I should like to return to the much more serious aspects of these Orders, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) has already referred. I complain of the uncertainty which the Orders and the statement made by the Chancellor in January have brought to British business. There seems to me to be two defensible, two intelligent attitudes to Purchase Tax. One is that Purchase Tax shall be reduced; and, if it is reduced, it seems clear to the business world that it must be reduced very early in the year, and,


when it has been reduced, that the reduction made at the beginning of the year should be final. The other is that Purchase Tax should be left as it is, but, against that, the Chancellor's intention to leave it alone should also be made perfectly clear.
What is utterly indefensible is to move towards the reduction of Purchase Tax and to do so, rightly, at the beginning of the year, but, at the same time, to introduce an increase in Purchase Tax and not let the industrial and business world know whether that is the beginning of a new policy or the end of Purchase Tax changes for that year. As I usually do, I want toargue from a simple example in my constituency. I visited a small carpet factory in Southampton during the Recess. A group of people are engaged there in valuable work both for the home and export markets. I was assured by the owner of the factory that the effects of the January announcement had been to freeze almost entirely the orders to that little factory.
Possible purchasers are wondering whether the January announcement was the forerunner of a new Purchase Tax policy to be announced in the Budget and they are unwilling to buy. Retailers are certainly unwilling to buy goods bearing Purchase Tax when they know how unjustly they are treated when they are left with Purchase Tax to meet after the tax has been cut in the Budget. Small factories, particularly, cannot stand the recession this dip in the demand for their products which uncertainty about Purchase Tax means at present.
I have had many communications from businesses, not only in my own town but elsewhere. I want to quote from a particular one of which the Chancellor must know, since the letter concerned was sent to him on 19th January by the chairman of Toilet Preparations Federation Ltd. The company make the simple case that
…any cuts in Purchase Tax must be welcomed as a step towards total elimination of tax….
but they are concerned at what they call
the increased industrial anxiety engendered by the deficiencies of your (the Chancellor's) announcement on 4th January.
They complain:
That you should take such an unprecedented step in advance of the Budget without

at the same time, giving any indication of policy in connection with the vast range of taxed goods not included in the present reductions, must give rise to Press and public speculation as to whether, when and how often similar steps may be taken. Such uncertainty is bound to aggravate severely the very fears of a retailers' and public buying strike which the Government has been persistently admonished to take steps to prevent; especially since its precipitate acceptance and implementation of the Hutton Report.
It is because we have had as yet no indication whether this is the beginning of a new policy of granting whatever Purchase Tax concessions are to be made at the beginning of the year—the business world has been asking for that—or whether we are to have a programme of fiddling about with Purchase Tax and even putting new Purchase Tax on at various times in the year, that some of us are exceedingly troubled about the policy of the Government. We hope that the Chancellor will be able to give a clear indication to the country of his policy this evening.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: I wish to intervene for only a moment to tell the Chancellor that I have had several representations from manufacturers of greetings cards, who are very disappointed that they are specifically excluded from concessions given in respect of prints and pictures.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: Something has been said in this debate about the astonishing character of the introduction of a Budget by instalments, which seems to be what is happening at present. There has been one advantage in the process. We have been able, perhaps, to give more concentrated attention—particularly on the part of hon. Members oppositie—to the very defective character, not merely of the special items within the Purchase Tax with which we are dealing, but of the whole principle of the Purchase Tax against which condemnations have come from hon. Members opposite as much as from hon. Members on this side.
I do not know whether the Chancellor has been struck by the fact that hon. Members opposite who have examined the burden of the tax with which we are dealing, particularly the burden of the tax in connection with floor covering, have been impressed by the fact and are


all quite sure that the burden of the tax is very much heavier than the Treasury says it is. We might say that they have been quoting from the same brief. Although their examples have been drawn from a very wide field, they all went to show that, instead of being £2 or £3 on the cost of a house, which at first seemed likely—or even £4 a house—it is more in the nature of £5, £6, £7 or £8. The burden is of a sufficiently substantial character for hon. Members who have got a new enthusiasm for housing policy to face this as an effective increase in the cost of production of housing which should be seriously taken into account.
I do not know whether the fact that in much of the debate the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Works have been present, and are still present, is an indication that some Ministers may themselves be suspecting what hon. Members on the back benches suspect—that there is a definite obstacle to an effective house-building programme imposed by the tax on floor covering, which has been so fully debated tonight.
I want to say a word or two about the other Orders and some of the other commodities to which reference has been made. I cannot understand why, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) indicated, there should be such a willingness to accept a tax on floor coverings and yet concern when we come to the question of space heaters, water heaters and so on. I find the water heater as much a part of a modern housing necessity as the covering over the floors. Indeed, a modern house, unless it has "jerry boards"because unseasoned woods have been used, may be left without any floor covering, if there is effective staining.
Floor covering is much less of a necessity than an effective means of heating water in the house. That we should still be considering a 50 per cent. tax for water heating, whether it be by gas or electricity, despite all that the hon. Member for Kidderminster said about the effective use of coal, and putting an obstacle in the way of people having a housing necessity of that sort is, in my judgment, entirely wrong. If the hon. Member can take one attitude about water heating, he ought to take the same attitude in regard to all the other com-

modities which enter into the general use of a modern house.
Turning from the question of housing, several issues arising under the other Orders have interested me, particularly the one referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), who protested against a tax still being imposed on mother-of-pearl. I suppose that a tax of that sort will inevitably lead to an increase in the price of those very necessary articles, the small mother-of-pearl button, or similar appurtenances which hon. Members know are extremely useful when, after washing day, one turns to a clean shirt and finds that the buttons have gone. The consumption of buttons in these days of what are called improved washing machines, but which in my experience I find to be very unimproved as far as the life of the button is concerned, and the increase of the price of mother-of-pearl or anything used in producing a shirt button, is a matter of importance, at any rate from the point of view of those who use pearl buttons.
I do not see what case the Chancellor has in these days for the retention of Purchase Tax at all on articles of that sort. It may be that people are being driven away from mother-of-pearl in order to use nylon buttons and other instruments which, I am informed, do not cut the cloth, but they do not look so nice as the good old-fashioned pearl button. It seems a pity that we should lose that delicate piece of ornamentation which many of us are glad to have.
There are so many issues that I am surprised at the Chancellor and the Treasury wishing to retain Purchase Tax on many items. I am sure that a great overhaul of the whole business of Purchase Tax is long overdue. The matter ought to be carefully considered by the Chancellor and new and better proposals ought to be brought before us.

6.48 p.m.

Mrs. Eveline Hill: I find myself in agreement with many others who have spoken in criticism of the Purchase Tax Order No. 1. I regret having to differ from the Chancellor, but I also regret that at this late date it should be found necessary to put a tax on something fresh. I would have hoped that taxes could have been removed. It does not console me in the


least that tax has been reduced on something I use in the house if I find that, when I want to put down a floor covering of thermo-plastic tiles, I have to pay tax on them.
This tax will affect all those young people who are building houses. A further important factor is that it will prove a great burden to local authorities with vast housing schemes, such as that in my town, not only in the case of houses, but in schools and hospitals. It really seems inequitable that at this late date we should have to pay Purchase Tax on something which is not a floor covering. There is great confusion there, but there is the greatest difference between a tile which has been fixed and is part of the building of the house and a roll of linoleum, or even a carpet. I regret that we have not been able to remove all tax on carpets.
I beg the Chancellor to have another look at this matter, because it is no use robbing Peter to pay Paul. I appeal to the Chancellor to endeavour to help all these people who have to shoulder this great burden.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The House is grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to debate Orders No. 2 and No. 3 together with the one with which we are primarily concerned, and thereby to have a fairly general discussion about related questions of Purchase Tax. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) it is only in this way that nowadays we have an opportunity to deal with these subjects in a coherent fashion. The Budget Resolutions last year were so drawn as considerably to fetter the rights of this House, and in any case those rights are limited when we are dealing with a specific Order.
I think that by this time the Chancellor has realised that the changes in Purchase Tax rates which he announced in January have had a very bad reception, not only in the Press but in this House. They were criticised in most sections of the Press, and today they have been adversely criticised by hon. Members opposite. I hope that the Chancellor will enlighten us about his object in announcing these changes at this time. We do not criticise the fact that some changes in Purchase Tax rates are made

at the beginning of the year and do not await the Budget, but the House and the country are entitled to know what underlies that change in policy.
Traders, particularly retail traders carrying stocks, are continuously and increasingly concerned about the losses they may incur as a result of the whole operation of the Purchase Tax system. What may be deduced from the changes which the Chancellor announced in January? Are traders in textiles and other commodities to assume that there will be further reductions when the Budget is announced, or are they to assume that the changes which have been announced are final, and intended to stiffle their hopes of further changes? The Chancellor must realise by now that he has done nothing whatever to remove the very considerable uncertainty which exists not only in Lancashire, in the textile industry, but throughout the whole of those sections of industry—and they are legion—affected by Purchase Tax. Therefore, for the benefit of traders who are so vitally affected, I hope that we shall hear from the Chancellor something of his underlying policy.
I do not propose to say more than has already been said about the two Orders giving relief from existing rates of tax, except that I find it difficult to see on what basis of principle some articles have been selected for relief rather than others which I should have thought equally deserving. As was stated in the "Manchester Guardian,"in the article referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), it seems difficult to justify these changes on the grounds of either equity or expediency. It is not the intention of hon. Members on this side of the House to oppose any of the proposed reductions in Purchase Tax. We believe that, apart from glaring cases of luxury goods, there should be a steady and continuous reduction in Purchase Tax on all items, and particularly on articles of a domestic or household nature.
It has emerged from this debate that the most pressing problem, the one which divides hon. Members who have spoken and the Government, is the proposal to increase the tax on floors. That proposal has suffered devastating criticism from one hon. Member opposite after another. For instance, the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) made a


devastating criticism of the effect of this proposal, and it was only by some subtle equivocal reasoning of his own that he has been able to persuade himself to vote for the Order, notwithstanding his admirable criticism of it.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Member will do me the honour of reading tomorrow what I said—although I hesitate to inflict that upon him—he will see that I said the principle enunciated by my right hon. Friend of obtaining equality of taxation was right, and that therefore I should vote for the Order, while regretting the result of its application in this particular case.

Mr. Fletcher: If I may say so, that is highly equivocal. If all that concerns the hon. Member is equality in tax burden, there is a much better alternative method of securing that objective.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) was equally devastating in his criticism, and he is only spared the necessity of voting against the Government, as he told us, by his good fortune in having some weeks ago arranged a pair for this evening. The hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) made a moving appeal to the Chancellor, to which I hope he will give attention. I hope he will listen to representations which have been made to him from both sides of the House.
On what ground did the Financial Secretary try to justify this new tax, the admitted effect of which will be to increase the cost of housing throughout the country? It is not disputed that the result of putting a tax on floorings, as distinct from floor coverings, will be to increase the cost not only of houses, but of schools, hospitals and public buildings of every kind. The only argument is whether the amount is nearer £4 or £8 per house. There is no dispute that it will impose an inevitable burden on all local authorities. It will be a contributing factor to the increasing of rents and will occasion considerable hardship.
On what ground is it justified? The Financial Secretary said there were two alternatives before the Government. They wanted to do something because there had been tax evasion in connection with linoleum. People had been cutting up linoleum into strips. If that is the problem

confronting the Chancellor, if there has really been tax evasion to any considerable degree, surely it would not have been beyond the wit of himself or his advisers to devise an appropriate form of words to curb that kind of tax evasion. As the Financial Secretary conceded, there was a clear alternative. The Government could cut out the tax altogether on floors. The cost involved would not be more than £1 million or, at the most, £2 million. If that were done, it would eliminate all this irritating confusion not only for traders but for local authorities and all others interested.
The Financial Secretary said that the problem was to know when a floor covering ceased to be a floor covering and became a floor. I assume from that that he agrees in principle that there ought not to be Purchase Tax on floors. We have heard from a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House that during the last few years the inventiveness and ingenuity of traders have produced tiles and other articles which are in every sense of the word floors and not floor coverings and, therefore, within the distinction made by the Labour Government, they ought not to be an appropriate subject for taxation.
The Financial Secretary also said that during the last day or two he had some discussions with those who produced thermoplastic tiles. I gathered from his remarks that the makers had not been consulted before the Order was introduced. The makers contend that what they manufacture is an improved type of floor, something which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as a floor covering. It is something which is not in the same category as carpets and linoleum. They, with great ingenuity, have been able to make these tiles of a limited thickness, which they now find brings them within the Order, whereas if they were thicker and of the same size as parquet flooring, which the rich can afford, they would continue to be exempt from Purchase Tax.
In other words, the effect of the Order is to penalise efficiency and inventive genious. It puts a burden on the new, modern, efficient type of floor which is gradually coming into use in the housing programmes of local authorities. Faced with the anomalies that will result, faced with the admission which the Financial


Secretary made that, as a result of his discussions yesterday, some modifications in the Order may have to be made, I make my plea to the Chancellor that he should agree that the right way to deal with this problem is to withdraw this Order and adopt the alternative of abolishing Purchase Tax altogether on anything in the nature of floor covering. I hope that if the Chancellor is not prepared to accept that recommendation, we on this side of the House will have the support of all those hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken so forcibly against the Government's proposal.

7.4 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): We have had a useful debate which is ending at about the time we intended, so everything, so far, is going according to plan. If it is to continue to go according to plan, we shall certainly cheerfully accept the challenge so fiercely made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and meet him in mortal combat which we shall shortly hope to win with the aid of my hon. Friends, some of whom have spoken in the debate.
The issue has boiled down to this: that I decided that it was worth while making certain Purchase Tax changes in the early part of this year. Under powers which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said, date from 1948, and other powers which date from the last Finance Bill, it is, I think fortunately, possible to change the Purchase Tax now at any time of the year. That, to a certain extent, is, I believe, an advantage.
I shall not shirk the questions which have been put to me by the hon. Member for Islington, East, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North, the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) and others. I shall deal with them at the end of my remarks. At present, I am simply making the general observation that it is valuable to have the power to make changes in Purchase Tax. I found, in making these changes, that there were some which resulted from our discussions during the last Budget. Not for the first time, because changes in Purchase Tax have been made before at a period outside the Budget, these changes were made and,

according to the usual practice, the No. 1 Order laid. We are now debating it in the ordinary Parliamentary manner.
Various criticisms and observations have been made. Let me remind the House that these Orders result in a net surrender by the Exchequer of about £3,200,000 and a gain—that is an imposition of tax—of £1 million, leaving a total surrender by the Exchequer of approximately £2,200,000. That is what is involved.
In looking at this packet generally, the criticisms or observations of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have concentrated largely on the question of tiles under Order No. 1. There has been some reference to space heaters and there has been a generous recognition by the hon. Baronet the Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) of the concession on jewellery and silverware. I take that last concession first. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North seemed to give all the arguments of an odious character he could to try to prove that a deep and sinister intention is in the breast of the Government and myself in presenting a packet of Purchase Tax alterations which involve a reduction of tax on two luxury trades.
The reason for that is exactly the same as I have explained to the House before, namely, that the jewellery and silverware trades, the economic circumstances of which I most closely examined before the decision was made, are such that they could not bear the tax at 75 per cent. which was on their products before. They were actually going downhill. Men were being dismissed and, what is most important, the old crafts were disappearing. We have had a mild success with our restoration of a little justice to the jewellery and silverware industries.
It is solely and simply for that reason—to help the trades and the men and women working in what is one of our most ancient crafts—that the decision was made to give them a little further exemption to 50 per cent. Even now, were the calls of the nation not so great, I would say that that level is as high as the trade can possibly stand. So much for that, which led to a most warm embrace from the City of Birmingham which I very much welcome in the chill times in which I live.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) said that our policy in this matter indicated a shift from the Manchester school to the Birmingham. Having just caused a sensation in the "Recorder" and other newspapers for my alleged move to Manchester, I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for restoring me to the City of Birmingham. I trust that he may also restore me to my own incarnation out of that of Sir Robert Peel with which he invested me in the last debate. I assure hon. Members that I can stand on my own legs, quite apart from my devotion to my own constituency and the effect of this or that school or this or that city.
I am estopped by the rules of order from answering the hon. Member for Blackburn, East on the subject of Manchester. I am sorry about that, because I could otherwise have made an excellent speech about the textile industry which would have restored her morale and even caused her to cross the Floor of the House.
I now come to the question of space heaters, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). May I say with what astonishment and gratification I heard him supporting the Government in the first portion of his address? Nowadays, we are gratified if we get any support. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. Let me assure him that I am not going back on his great campaign for fuel preservation. In fact, fuel conservation, and the general policy which he adopts, is very close to my heart.
The position with regard to electric space heaters is this. We were informed that the penal rate of tax dating from the last Administration, but reduced by my benign attentions last Budget to 75 per cent., was still a penal rate resulting in the production of cheaper, less efficient and sometimes dangerous appliances. We therefore found it necessary, on representations not only from the trade, but also from experts, to lower the extent of the tax, and we do not see any reason now for imagining that the policy of fuel wasting will be encouraged by this step.
After the consultations in which I indulged with the British Electricity

Authority, we do not think that either the peak periods or any others will be affected by the reduction of the tax to that very small extent on these instruments. My hon. Friend may, therefore, feel satisfied that it is after the greatest possible care that we have examined this matter and that this decision has been made.
I now come to the question of tiles which has proved somewhat controversial, and the tax on which was not introduced by me or anybody else in a spirit of fun. We did it because a tendency, which was noticed by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North as long ago as 1948, has become an abuse. It is this. People have discovered that linoleum which bears Purchase Tax at the rate of 25 per cent., if cut into pieces, pays no tax at all.

Mrs. Mann: Why not?

Mr. Butler: Because there is no provision in the law for taxing bits of linoleum while there is provision for taxing a sheet of linoleum.

Mrs. Mann: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the extra labour involved in putting these pieces together really justifies their bearing a lower tax?

Mr. Butler: It also involves inequity, and that is something which it is essential that a Chancellor should not maintain.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would not the right hon. Gentleman admit that, although linoleum may be cut up into small pieces for the purpose of avoiding tax, it still remains a floor covering, whereas tiles, which are now included for tax purposes, form a permanent part of the floor and are not a floor covering?

Mr. Butler: I shall try to explain these difficulties as I proceed, but I want, first, to deal with the reason we had to take this step at all. On 13th December, 1948, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary when in Opposition, who pointed out that linoleum was being cut into strips—which shows the prescience and foresight of my right hon. Friend—said:
If the allegation is true it would be intolerable, uneconomic and a waste of labour.


He then went on to say:
If it were shown to be on a larger scale—and I say quite frankly we did not expect it—then it might be necessary to take some amending action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 976.]
The answer is that that tendency has continued into an abuse. We are now faced with a definite evasion of tax and are amending the law in the manner prescribed by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jay: The Chancellor says he is amending it in the manner prescribed by myself. The Government are not doing that at all. The method I suggest for getting over the difficulty is that the tax should be removed from linoleum.

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that in 1948,whether he says it or not now. I will now deal with that aspect of the matter of which I had a note, because that was raised in the debate. I have, of course, considered whether it would be possible to remove the tax on all forms of floor covering. There has been a certain amount of questioning as to how the £17 million which is derived from this tax is made up as between carpets and rugs and linoleum and rubber.
The exact figures are that carpets and rugs account for some £12 million and linoleum and rubber for some £5 million. If I were moved to give a concession and put this in equity the other way round, namely, by taking off the tax altogether instead of making the tax equitable between the different types, then I would have had to sacrifice £5 million in revenue. Quite frankly, having considered that alternative in order to stop this evasion, I simply have not the money with which to do it. I could not afford it, and therefore, I had to take the opposite course, namely, to impose the tax on the cut-up strips.
Unfortunately, in coming into that sphere, I run into the difficulty put to me by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken on this matter. I run into the difficulty of wood. Under the Order, it is laid down that these tiles, strips and blocks should be of less than three-eighths of an inch if not of wood, but if of wood or cork that they should be less than five-eighths of an inch.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire raised a particular case of a certain type of wood tile which is three-eighths of an inch. I am quite prepared to follow up what my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has said and to say that if representations are made to us and to the Customs after this Order has been approved, and if we find that we can in any way adjust this to make the situation fair, then we will do so. That, of course, would mean some form of amending action. I give no promise. I simply say that this debate has brought to light certain difficulties in this sphere as regards definition and that we are ready to hear representations as my right hon. Friend said.
That indicates that we are trying to achieve justice in this matter, but the idea that we can altogether leave out the parquet flooring which is put down on the floor and is not a floor and is normally in the more well-to-do households, and yet tax the other sort of tiles would be unfair. It is in this effort to maintain a certain degree of fairness that I have got myself into a certain amount of trouble with some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, But I have, I believe, preserved a sense of equity in this very difficult question of floor covering.
So much for the main issues in this debate. I do not want to feel that this is imposing a great burden on housing. The actual cost will not be more than £4 and, in some cases, not more than £3 per house. Nor is this the material used in every house, and in the case of linoleum, where that is used, that has already been taxed for some time. Therefore, I do not believe that this constitutes quite the great economic revolution which some hon. Members have suggested.
I think it is a modest matter which we can take in our stride and which has enabled me to give certain concessions, in particular to the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer). His dog with the corkscrew attachment is now taxed in the same way as any reasonable dog. That is a great advance and shows that the Government are able to remedy abuses when they are brought to their notice.
A big issue has been raised upon which I will now say a word or two. It was raised by the right hon. Member for


Battersea, North, by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King), by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East and by other hon. Members, namely, that there is uncertainty about the future of the Purchase Tax, and with regard to the general policy.
I was asked by one hon. Member to bring the blessing of certainty. I say to the House that these representations have made a definite impression on my mind, and I would like the opportunity of considering what has been said on the matter in this debate. If I find that these arguments are valid, I want togive the House warning that I may find it necessary to make a very early statement on this matter, but I would rather not do it at the end of this debate tonight. For one thing, we are drawing the debate to a close, and I would rather do it at a time when I am not inhibited by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, about the extent of the debate. If I have to make a statement I must not be inhibited by the rules of order, but must give what arguments I think there are in support of my statement. I shall pay attention to what has been said, and if my impression is that that statement is necessary, it must be made at the earliest opportunity.
I have had representations from a great variety of organisations, the retail distributors in particular, the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, the apparel and fashion industries, the Scottish retail drapers, the radio equipment manufacturers, the Briar Pipe Trade Association, and many individual firms. Two more of them came in during

the day, and it is obvious to me that it must now be brought home to people what our intention is in the future, so that the minimum of uncertainty will be created. If the House will let me have the opportunity of pondering on the debate and then taking the course I think best, that will answer the Question put to me today by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, which has been deferred to Thursday.

In my position I do not think it is any good letting the House imagine that things are easier than they are. Things are not easy, and I do not want Lancashire Members to think that it will be easy to concede the somewhat large requests they have made in this field. I would much rather put myself squarely before the House and say that this is not the time, in my view, when large concessions, or, indeed, concessions of any type, are likely. I say that on purpose, so that there shall be no misunderstanding.

Although that may be a sombre note on which to end, I sum up by saying that I have undertaken to consider what has been said about uncertainty, and that if I make a statement I will make it in conditions that are constitutionally proper so that the House can hear and comment upon it. I hope that we can now have this Order. The debate has been very useful to me, because I have heard what hon. Members think, and that is the right way to do justice in this matter.

Question put,

The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 241.

Division No. 28.]
AYES
[7.23 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braine, B. R.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Sir Gurney
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, W. H.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crouch, R. F.


Baker, P. A. D.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Baldwin, A. E.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Banks, Col. C.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Barber, Anthony
Bullard, D. G.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Barlow, Sir John
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Davidson, Viscountee


Baxter, A. B.
Burden, F. F. A.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Deedes, W. F.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Digby, S. Wingfield


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Campbell, Sir David
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Carr, Robert
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Channon, H.
Donner, Sir P. W.


Bennett. Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Bishop, F. P.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Drayson, G. B.


Black, C. W.
Cole, Norman
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Colegate, W. A.
Duncan, Capt. J A. L.


Bowen, E. R.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Duthie, W. S.




Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Leather, E. H. C.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Erroll, F. J.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Fell, A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Robertson, Sir David


Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robson-Brown, W.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Longden, Gilbert
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Low, A. R. W.
Russell, R. S.


Fort, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Foster, John
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morcambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McAdden, S. J.
Scott, R. Donald


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McCallum, Major D.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Shepherd, William


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Gammans, L. D.
McKibbin, A. J.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maclean, Fitzroy
Snadden, W. McN.


Glover, D.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Godber, J. B.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Speir, R. M.


Gough, C. F. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Spent, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S)


Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stevens, G. P.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Grimond, J.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marples, A. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Storey, S.


Hare, Hon. J. A.
Maude, Angus
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maudling, R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Summers, G. S.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mellor, Sir John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hay, John
Molson, A. H. E.
Teeling, W.


Heath, Edward
Moore, Sir Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Neave, Airey
Thorneycroft, Rt.Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholls, Harmar
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Hollis, M. C.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Turton, R. H.


Holt, A. F.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hope, Lord John
Oakshott, H. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vosper, D. F.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Horobin, I. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Osborne, C.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Page, R. G.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Wellwood, W.


Hurd, A. R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wills, G.


Jennings, Sir Roland
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
York, C.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Profumo, J. D.



Kaberry, D.
Raikes, Sir Victor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Kerr, H. W.
Redmayne, M.
Sir Cedric Drewe and


Lambert, Hon. G.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Studholme.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)


Adams, Richard
Benson, G.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Albu, A. H.
Beswick, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bing, G. H. C.
Burke, W. A.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Blackburn, F.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Blenkinsop, A
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Blyton, W. R.
Callaghan, L. J.


Balfour, A.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G.
Carmichael, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bowden, H. W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Bartley, P.
Bowles, F. G.
Champion, A. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Chapman, W. D.


Bence, C. R.
Brockway, A. F.
Chetwynd, G. R.







Clunie, J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coldrick, W.
Jonas, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Collick, P. H.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Keenan, W.
Ross, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Cullen, Mrs. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Daines, P.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, E. W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Logan, D. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Delargy, H. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McGovern, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McInnes, J.
Snow, J. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sorensen, R. W.


Edelman, M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McNeil Rt. Hon. H.
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Steele, T.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Manuel, A. C.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Fienburgh, W.
Mason, Roy
Sylvester, G. O.


Finch, H. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Follick, M.
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Foot, M. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thornton, E.


Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.
Timmons, J.


Gooch, E. G.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Tomney, F.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mort, D. L.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, J. D.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wallace, H. W.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Han. P. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
O'Brien, T.
Watkins, T. E.


Hamilton, W. W.
Oldfield, W. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hannan, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Weitzman, D.


Hargreaves, A.
Orbach, M.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Oswald, T.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hastings, S.
Padley, W. E.
West, D. G.


Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Palmer, A. M. F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Pannell, Charles
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wigg, George


Holman, P.
Parkin, B. T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Houghton, Douglas
Pearson, A
Wilkins, W. A.


Hoy, J. H.
Peart, T. F.
Willey, F. T.


Hubbard, T. F.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, David (Neath)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Popplewell, E.
William, Rev. Lywelyn (Abertillery)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Porter, G.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pryde, D. J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reeves, J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Janner, B.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Yates, V. F.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reid, William (Camlachie)



Jeger, George (Goole)
Richards, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the (Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order, 1954 (S.I., 1954, No, 1), dated 1st January, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th January be approved.

Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman desire to move either of the Prayers?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION FOR SPACE OCCUPIED BY PROPELLING POWER.)

7.33 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), in page 2, to leave out line 11, is not selected.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. E. Shinwell: I wish to elicit some information about an aspect of the Bill which arises under Clause 1. Provision is made in subsection (1, b) for the surveyor of ships to be satisfied that the space provided for the working of the boilers andmachinery and the ventilation and lighting of the space are adequate. I am concerned, as are all navigating officers and seamen associated with the matter, with the ventilation and illumination of engine and boiler spaces.
It is true that provision is made for a surveyor to determine whether the ventilation and illumination are satisfactory, but I gather that there are no regulations which will enable the Minister to determine whether the work is being carried out effectively. The matter applies particularly to officers and men in engine rooms who are sailing in tropical or semi-tropical waters. They are confined in these enclosed spaces, some of which are inevitably very small, and the weather makes their task doubly difficult.
If there were to be such regulations, they could be debated if they were laid upon the Table on some subsequent occasion, but if such regulations are not forthcoming, I should like an assurance that the Ministry will keep a very close eye on the matter. It may be a small point, but it is one which substantially affects the men concerned. I hope the Minister will give me the assurance for which I ask or give some indication that on a future occasion regulations will be provided which can be debated in the ordinary course.

Mr. Graham Page: Clause 1 (2) provides for the alteration of the law relating to the deduction from gross tonnage of the amount of propelling power space. Under the present law there is a 32 per cent. reduction if the propelling power space is more than 13 per cent. Subsection (2, a) provides that it shall be a 32 per cent. reduction if the power propelling space is 13 per cent. of the gross tonnage, and subsection (2, b) provides that if the power propelling space is less than 13 per cent., the 32 per cent. deduction shall be proportionately reduced.
As I understand it, the terms of the Clause are based on the findings of a very eminent committee which reported in 1950, and which was appointed by the Institute of Naval Architects. On the committee were naval architects, ship owners and marine engineers. They advised on a short-term policy with regard to the calculation of registered tonnage, which was that where the propelling power space was either more or less than 13 per cent., then 32 per cent. deduction should be allowed and not, as provided in the subsection to Clause 1, that it should be proportionately reduced. That seems fair enough. If the 13 per cent. propelling power space is increased, the 32 per cent. is not proportionately increased.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend could explain the reason for putting those words "proportionately reduced" against the 32 per cent. reduction, when the propelling power space is less than 13 per cent. of the gross tonnage.

Mr. Stan Awbery: I have tried to ascertain whether the Bill would affect the Plimsoll line or the loading line in any way, but I have not received an assurance that it will not do so. I should like the Minister to give a categorical assurance that the Plimsoll line, which is sacrosanct so far as I am concerned, will not be interfered with in any way.
He told us on the last occasion that there were two methods of ascertaining tonnage. One is the gross tonnage, or overall size of the ship and the displacement of the water. The second is the net tonnage, which is the earning capacity of the ship when the engine-room space and the stokehold are taken away. If the ship remains the same size in gross


tonnage and the engine-room space is small or large, the Plimsoll line should remain the same as it is. If it does not, then perhaps the Minister will tell us.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) told us that if the carrying part of the ship is 12 per cent., then 21 per cent. is deducted, and if it is 13·1 per cent. then 32 per cent. is deducted, and there is a graduation between 21 per cent. and 32 per cent. If that is the case, it means an increase in the carrying capacity of the ship. I cannot for the life of me see how, if the tonnage carried by a ship is increased, it does not put the ship lower down in the water and alter the load line. Perhaps the Minister will let us know whether there will be a gradual, uniform scale which alters the Plimsoll line. If a ship will carry more under the new calculation which we are introducing today, that is bound to affect the buoyancy of the ship, the safety of the ship workers at sea and the load-line.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) mentioned the engine-room. If we are to have a bigger carrying capacity because the engine-room and the stokehold are smaller, will there not be a tendency then to reduce the size of the stokehold and of the engine-room? They are small enough now, heaven knows, particularly in tropical climates when men have to be down below attending to the fires and in the engine-room. If we are to introduce this new method of calculation we ought at the same time to introduce some new method whereby a minimum size of engine-room and stokehold could be determined. To remove the temptation to which I have referred, we should lay down a minimum capacity in that way.
Will the Minister tell us in clear language whether this alteration will affect the buoyancy of ships at sea? After I had read the Bill, and read again the discussion which took place on the Second Reading, it was clear that there is need for a comprehensive Merchant Shipping Bill, because many vital changes have taken place.

7.45 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: This argument is going beyond the Clause.

Mr. Awbery: We are doing something to alter our shipping system, and I am

throwing out a suggestion that a comprehensive Shipping Bill should be considered by the Ministry at an early stage to deal with the new problems which have arisen.

Mr. M. Follick: Hear, hear.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot pursue that argument on this Clause.

Mr. Awbery: I am sorry if I deviated, but the Minister will know what I have in my mind. This is one Bill, but we want a larger one. I want to protect the men as much as I can. Many hon.Members will have seen a picture called "The Cruel Sea"and will have read the book, in which case they will know something about what these men who go down to the sea in ships suffer. We ought to make things as safe and pleasant as we can when these men are following their avocations. If the Bill is to change the Plimsoll line it will alter the buoyancy of the ship and make it more difficult for these men. I am not a seafarer, but I am glad that the Seamen's Union have agreed to the Bill—so far as I can gather. Probably they are satisfied, but I feel I should not be doing my duty if I let the Bill go by default.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is talking about the Bill. We are discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Awbery: I am dealing with the Clause, Sir Rhys. The question of the buoyancy of the ship arises in Clause 1. I am trying to point out that if we pass the Bill as it is, the buoyancy of the ship will be affected and, through that, the lives of the men.
Ihope that the Minister will give serious consideration to this matter and give us a categorical assurance; and not only to myself. I have read the Bill a few times and have tried to grasp how the Clause will affect the men. I am not clear about it in my own mind, and I want the Minister to make it clear, not only to me but to the men who will have to work under these conditions.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I want to ask the Minister a question on the Clause, which provides that the alteration envisaged shall be subject to the


approval of the surveyor of ships. Clause 1 says:
In ascertaining the registered tonnage of the ship the deduction allowable for that space under section seventy-eight of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894…
(b) shall not be made unless the surveyor of ships is satisfied that the space provided for the working of the boilers and machinery and the ventilation and lighting of that space are adequate.
How is the surveyor of ships to be satisfied? There is no provision in the Bill for procedure whereby he can be satisfied.
If we turn to subsection (5) of the same Clause we read:
Where under the foregoing provisions of this section the making of the deduction mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, or its computation in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, depends on the surveyor of ships being satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (b) of the said subsection (1),…
There is not a word as to how the surveyor of ships is to be satisfied; what evidence he will require; how that evidence is to be adduced, and how it is to be considered by him. The Clause goes on to say:
…and the deduction…has been made and so computed but a surveyor of ships, on inspecting the ship, fails to be satisfied as aforesaid…
Why should he fail to be satisfied? What kind of evidence will satisfy him, and what kind of evidence will fail to satisfy him? These matters should be made clear. Paragraph (b) says that if the deduction:
…has not been made or, as the case may be, has not been so computed, but a surveyor of ships, on inspecting the ship, is satisfied as aforesaid….
It does not rest there. It is not merely a question of inspecting the ship. From the general tenor of this Clause it is obvious that some other evidence will be required by the surveyor of ships. The Clause continues:
…the surveyor shall inform the registrar of British ships and the registered tonnage of the ship shall be altered accordingly.
That is all very charming and very smooth, but it does not indicate how the surveyor of ships is to be satisfied; what evidence he will require; how that evidence is to be adduced, and whether it is to be conveyed from the surveyor of ships to the registrar of British ships in writing, verbally, or otherwise. This is a little Bill, but it is important to seamen.

The question of the approval of the surveyor of ships and the manner in which he will convey to the registrar of ships either his approval or disapproval is relevant under this Clause, and the Minister should give to the Committee the answers to the questions which I have put. I am limiting myself expressly to this narrow point, because I want to say something more on the Bill as a whole when it comes to be considered by the House.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I make no complaint at the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have asked questions about the way in which this Clause will operate. I do not claim that this Bill is particularly easy to understand. In the case of an existing ship the new and more favourable computation will apply only if the owner has made a request in writing to that effect and the surveyor of ships is satisfied.
The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) asked me how the surveyor is to be satisfied, and what was the general procedure to be followed. It seems to me that the hon. and learned Member does not fully realise that surveyors ofships are employees of the Ministry of Transport and directly under the control of my right hon. Friend and that they are, in respect to all the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, constantly going on board ships to examine them for all purposes, for example, the general standard of accommodation for the crew, and so on. One of the advantages of the present system is that there is extremely little formality about the procedure. Nearly all the surveyors of ships are ex-seafaring men, who are familiar with ships.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in no Clause of this Bill do we find any provisions for the making of rules and regulations. In view of that fact, it is up to the Minister to give a very clear explanation of the point I have put, and he is not doing so.

Mr. Molson: It is not reasonable of the hon. and learned Gentleman to interrupt me on a point of that sort just as I am in the middle of explaining it.
I was saying that the surveyors of ships are constantly going on board ships, and


they carry out inspections of the ships for all the purposes required under the Merchant Shipping Acts. There is no question of making rules and regulations, any more than my right hon. Friend makes rules and regulations for the work of the civil servants in his Department. These surveyors are experienced in the work, and they are directly under the control of the Minister. They have the confidence both of the trade unions concerned and the employers. I am glad that it is possible to introduce a Bill which does not provide for the making of rules and regulations.
If at any time, or for any period of time, a surveyor is not satisfied as to the adequacy of the ventilation, lighting, and so on, the ship concerned will not enjoy the more favourable deduction which is provided for under this Bill. It has not always been entirely clear that what happens in the case of an existing ship and what happens in the case of a new ship are two different things. In the case of an old ship which does not satisfy the surveyor's requirements as to the standards of ventilation, lighting and space, that ship does not, during the time that he is dissatisfied, enjoy the more favourable deduction which is provided for under this Bill. During the period when the ventilation, lighting and space are inadequate the ship falls back to the deduction which is provided for under Section 78 of the Act of 1894—which is one and three quarter times the size of the engine room.
I think it is only right that this Bill should not deprive existing ships of the benefits which they now enjoy and have enjoyed under the Act of 1894. In the case of new ships, on the other hand, when they are first surveyed or on any subsequent survey, if the surveyor comes to the conclusion that the ventilation, lighting and space are not adequate, that new ship will not enjoy any deduction whatsoever from the gross tonnage in order to arrive at the registered tonnage. That is because we consider that there is not the slightest reason why new ships should not be designed and built with adequate ventilation, lighting and space. There is that difference between the old and the new ships.

Mr. Shinwell: I spoke very briefly at the outset because I wanted to help not

only the Parliamentary Secretary but the Committee—and I did not think that this debate required to be carried on at great length—but I am bound to say that the statement which he has just made disturbs me considerably. I have the utmost confidence in surveyors, because I have a great deal of experience in this matter, but I never suspected that in the matter of adequate ventilation and illumination a surveyor had no rules or regulations to guide him. What determines the adequacy of ventilation or illumination? Is it merely left to the judgment of the surveyor? Obviously if it were a dispute might easily arise between the surveyor and those who sailed on a ship which he had inspected, and the Ministry would be embroiled.
8.0 p.m.
I think the hon. Member must go a little further. I always thought that the surveyors were not a law unto themselves but worked on pre-determined lines which were probably the result of custom or tradition or, it may be, the result of rules and regulations laid down by the Ministry. Before the Ministry of Transport was created, indeed, before the Ministry of Shipping emerged, we had the Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade. I always thought, during that period, that surveyors could not do as they pleased but must conform to certain rules concerning ventilation and illumination.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would care to look into this matter a little more closely. Frankly, whatever confidence is reposed in surveyors as a whole, I am not prepared to agree that they should be a law unto themselves in determining whether ventilation and illumination in the more confined spaces are adequate or not. I ask the hon. Gentleman to go into the matter more fully.

Mr. Awbery: If we are not laying down a new formula for the surveyor to ascertain where the load-line is on a new ship, then when he measures it the load-line will be higher on the side of the ship than under existing conditions.

Mr. Molson: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point and I will gladly look into the matter further. As I understand the position it is that down to the present time there have been all kinds of requirements in ships where the


surveyor has to be satisfied. Those standards have been broadly agreed between the trade unions concerned and the owners, and the Department which I represent has acted as the surveyor who has enforced those general standards in the ships. Under the Bill we are taking a step further forward. Until now there has been no requirement that the surveyor should be satisfied as to the living conditions, shall I call it, of the engineers in the engine room. We are making it a condition for the future that if ships are to obtain the more favourable deduction which is provided in the Bill, then the surveyor mustbe satisfied that the engine room is large enough to provide reasonable amenities for those who work there.

Mr. Shinwell: Conform to certain standards.

Mr. Molson: The right hon. Gentleman says "certain standards." As I said to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, no rules and regulations are laid down but in practice conditions in engine rooms in modern ships are in general acceptable to those concerned. That, as I understand it, is the present position.
This Bill, therefore, represents a very definite step forward in the direction of providing for additional inspection, but the right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point; he wonders whether this discretion may not be a little too extensive. I will gladly make inquiries from my advisers and I will communicate with him further upon the subject. I hope that that deals with the question of the standards in the engine room and the way in which the surveyor shall be satisfied.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) returned to the point which he raised on Second Reading. I thought I had given him an assurance which was so explicit that I had brought reassurance to his mind. As reported at column 2003, I said:
…this Bill will in no way affect the law concerning load lines. There is no question whatever of reducing the margin of safety in that respect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1954; Vol. 522, c. 2003.]

Mr. Awbery: rose—

Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman has asked me about this and I should like to give him the explanation. I listened to what he said today and I believe he misunderstands the meaning of gross tonnage

in the case of a merchant ship. It is a measure of space and not of weight.

Mr. Awbery: Displacement.

Mr. Molson: It is not displacement; it' is the space in the ship. The purpose of the Bill is to encourage the design of ships to be carried out in such a way that a larger proportion of the space in the ship is used for cargo instead of for the engine room. But that in no way affects the legislation relating to the loading line. There is no change whatsoever in the guarantees of safety provided by that legislation. Indeed, in one important respect reduction in the size of the engine room is likely to increase the factor of safety, because it will be possible to divide the ship in a better way in order, if she is holed in one part, that the danger of her sinking will be less.

Mr. Awbery: It is still not clear to me. The purpose of the Bill is to enable a ship to carry more cargo. How can a ship carry mote cargo if it does not go deeper into the water?

Mr. Molson: I am not saying that a ship might not go deeper into the water. I was saying that this Bill in no way affects the legislation about the loading line, so that it would be illegal to load her so heavily that she went below the loading line.

Mr. Shinwell: Can I help my hon. Friend in this matter? Is it not the case that to effect an alteration in the load-line or the Plimsoll line, an Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act is required, and that is not provided in the Bill?

Mr. Molson: I am much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his assistance.

Mr. Awbery: I am not convinced.

Mr. Molson: I should not expect anyone to be able to convince the hon. Genman, but he is more likely to be willing to accept an assurance from his right hon. Friend than he is to accept it from me. We have both agreed in giving that assurance and I trust that even if he does not quite understand the position, he will, at any rate, assume that we are both speaking in good faith and that the trade unions representing seafaring men also understand the matter and have satisfied themselves upon this point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)referred to his Amendment which you, Sir Rhys, did not select. May I tell him that this Bill is the result of consultation between all the interests concerned with shipping. We have reached agreement with 26 of the 28 foreign or overseas Governments with which we have reciprocal agreements upon this matter. What my hon. Friend is asking is that this large concession should apply in respect of ships where the engine room is less than 13 per cent. of the space. He really did not advance any argument as to why that should be done.
It has always been the view of the Government that although power was taken in the Act of 1894 to allow that deduction to be made it was unreasonable to use it. It would at the present time be opposed by the trade unions, by the dock and harbour authorities, and would not be acceptable to the overseas Governments with which we have reciprocal arrangements. The effect, therefore, of making that Amendment in this Bill would be that we should, in fact, be breaking the reciprocal agreement which we have arrived at and which we have now agreed with these foreign countries to amend.
In the United States of America, for example, a Bill somewhat similar to this Bill has already been introduced into the Legislature to give effect to this agreement. Therefore, as the effect of the Amendment would inevitably mean the destruction of the Bill, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we had better stick to what has been agreed upon.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(CONSTRUCTION, CITATION AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Awbery: May I ask whether the procedure which we have adopted now can be brought before the international board for verification? We know that some of the regulations are not complied with by other nations.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not see how that arises on this Clause.

Mr. Awbery: I want to know whether the Minister can do something through the international organisation at Geneva to extend this procedure to other nations as well as to British possessions?

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ANTIQUITIES OF SCOTLAND [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a Board to manage the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, it is expedient to authorise—

(i) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of

(a) the expenses incurred by the said Board in the exercise and discharge of their powers and duties; and
(b) the sums required for the remuneration of the officers and servants of the said Board, in so far as such expenses or sums are not otherwise defrayed under any provision of the said Act; and
(ii) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the said Board and not otherwise applied under any provision of the said Act.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ANTIQUITIES OF SCOTLAND BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(Powers and duties of the Board.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I apologise to the Scottish Members who are present for intervening in this debate. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the National Museum on securing


in subsection (1 f) the provision that will enable it to
with the consent of the Secretary of State destroy any object vested in them which appears to them to be infested by destructive organisms or, by reason of physical deterioration, to have become useless for the purposes of the museum.
This is a most valuable provision, particularly with regard to any museum which preserves specimens of natural history, because in the course of time these become infested with parasitic organisms which not merely destroy the particular specimens to which they attach themselves but in a very short time spread and do considerable damage. I think that this is the first time that a museum acting under an Act of Parliament has secured this provision. I can only hope that it will be extended to other museums.
There was a Bill prepared by the late Government which would have dealt with this matter. It was introduced by the present Government in its first Session, but some unkind remarks made by the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins) made them apparently fearful of going on with it. This is an important matter, and I congratulate the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland on securing this provision. I sincerely hope that the fact that it has not been opposed will encourage the Government to make it of wider application.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND ACT, 1906, s. 4, 6 Edw. 7. c. 50.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. William Hannan: May I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to explain what I think appears, on a hurried re-reading of the Clause, to be at variance with what is contained in the Schedule. Clause 6 states:
Subsections (1) and (3) of section four of the National Galleries of Scotland Act, 1906, in so far as they relate to the period of office of the members of the Board thereby constituted,…shall cease to have effect and each member shall hold office for five years….

Paragraph 3 of the Schedule states:
Each appointed member of the Board shall hold office for four years….
Will the Under-Secretary confirm whether I am right in thinking that, although this is a Bill relating to the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, advantage has been taken in it to make an amendment to the National Galleries Act, and whether the period of appointment is for four years?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): This particular Clause refers to the governors of the National Galleries, whereas the Schedule refers to the members of the board of the new museum, and, as the hon. Member has guessed, we are taking advantage of this Bill to make this change in the status of the National Galleries.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause—(PROVISION FOR EXPENSES.)

Any expenses incurred by the Board in the exercise and discharge of their powers and duties under this Act, and any sums required for the remuneration of the officers and servants of the Board, shall, except in so far as they are defrayed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section two of this Act, be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. Any moneys received by the Board and not used in accordance with the provisions of the said paragraph (c) or subject to any specific direction or condition shall be paid into the Exchequer.—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a Privilege Amendment which will be Clause 5 of the Bill.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule.—(CONSTITUTION AND PROCEEDINGS OF BOARD.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Hannan: May I ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether he would consider, even at this late stage of the Bill,


paragraph 1 (iii), which states that one representative of the Board will be representing schools? The hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, recall that on Second Reading I stressed the importance of the use that the schools could make of the museums for educational purposes. I ask the Joint Under-Secretary to consider increasing the number of representatives from the schools. By paragraph 1 (e) (iv), there are to be eight persons
representing such public interests other than archaeological.
If one were transferred from this category to the representation from the schools, it would strengthen and give a greater impetus to the interest in museums from the educational angle.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member and undertake that we will give close consideration to his suggestion.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (WIDOWS' PENSIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

8.21 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The name of the Royal Irish Constabulary will bring back memories to a few of the elder Members of the House but to most of us it is familiar mainly as a matter of history, for it is more than 30 years since this memorable force was disbanded. Its members performed outstanding services to the Crown, and never more so than during the last years of their service.
After the 1922 Treaty, the R.I.C., as it is conveniently called, was disbanded. The official date of disbandment was 31st August, 1922. But the disbandment of the R.I.C. did not put an end to the payment of pensions to the widows of men who had served in the force. In fact, the total number of widows still receiving pensions is 1,727.
Until 1948 the R.I.C. widows, broadly speaking, enjoyed parity of pensions provisions with English police widows. In

particular, up to that year neither the R.I.C. nor the English police forces had any provision for granting ordinary pensions to widows of policemen who had retired on pension before1918. These so-called pre-1918 widows were not eligible to receive any pension at all on the death of their husbands. A pre-1918 widow is not, of course, necessarily a woman who was widowed before 1918. She is the widow of a man who retired before the operative date in 1918. Such a man may still be alive today, and, consequently, there may be a small number of women—a very small number, no doubt—not yet widowed who will in the future become pre-1918 widows.
As I have said, until 1948 there was no provision for ordinary pensions for these widows, either in the R.I.C. or in the English police forces. In 1948, however, a concession was made for the pre-1918 widows of English policemen. The Police Pensions Regulations, 1948, gave police authorities in this country discretionary powers to award a pension to such a widow up to the then current National Insurance rate of 26s. a week. These powers were subject to conditions broadly similar to those in the National Insurance scheme for increasing certain widows' pensions. That is to say, the widow must be aged 60 or have a dependent child or be incapable of self-support. In each case a further condition was that the widow should not be in receipt of any other State pension or grant.
This concession was made for English pre-1918 police widows and not for R.I.C. pre-1918 widows. Of course, considerations arise when one is dealing with an existing force which are not relevant to a force which was disbanded 30 years ago, and at that time it was decided that the concession should not be given to these R.I.C. widows.
Apart from the concession to the pre-1918 widows, another concession was made in 1948 for the benefit of English police widows which was not then passed on to the R.I.C, namely, that English police widows in receipt of pensions at less than the National Insurance rate could have those pensions increased up to the National Insurance rate at the discretion of the police authority. These decisions, naturally, caused keen disappointment among R.I.C. widows, and


letters began to flow in which revealed a distressing picture of poverty and hardship. I do not think anyone could read those letters—I am sure the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will agree—without being deeply moved by them.
The cause of the widows was taken up by a number of hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, and I believe that when the right hon. Member for South Shields was Home Secretary he was convinced that there was a case for reconsidering their claim. At all events, the present Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend, came to the same conclusion and ordered a thorough examination of the problem. The results of this examination satisfied him that a concession should be made, at least for the relief of hardship, among a small number of ageing widows of men who had served their country well. The scheme is thus both a modest and an exceptional Measure.
The general effect of the Bill will be to enable an R.I.C. widow, who satisfies the conditions laid down, to receive a minimum income of 32s. 6d. a week. The Home Secretary will have, broadly, the same discretionary powers in respect of R.I.C. widows as a police authority in Great Britain in respect of the grant or increase of police widows' pensions.
The Bill itself is fairly simple. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 has two limbs. Paragraph (a) deals with supplementary allowances. These will be paid to bring up to the National Insurance level the pensions of those R.I.C. widows who now receive pensions at a lower level. Paragraph (b) refers to the pre-1918 widows who, at present, are entitled to no pension whatever.
It will be seen that the grant of supplementary allowances or new pensions is to be discretionary, and, as I have said, in deciding whether an award is to be granted regard will be had to the needs of the individual. It is not intended that a widow who is already comfortably off shall receive an award, but such evidence as I have—admittedly, it is incomplete—suggests that there are few, if any, of these widows who are not in need of the extra money which can be given to them under the Bill.
I must make it clear, however, that the extra money granted under the Bill will be fully taken into account by the National Assistance Board, so that widows already receiving National Assistance at a rate either the same or higher than the rate of pension which may be awarded under the Bill, will receive no increase to their total income. The subsection further provides for the rates of the allowances and pensions to be prescribed by regulations, and these regulations will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
The conditions mentioned in Clause 1 (2) are those generally included in this type of legislation but I ought perhaps to say a word about paragraph (c). The residence qualification laid down in that paragraph will include the majority of R.I.C. widows. I understand that about half of them are now living in the Irish Republic. We thought it reasonable to limit the scheme to these islands because the hardship which the Bill is designed to meet is the product of economic conditions in this part of the world. No evidence has been received of hardship among such widows who are living overseas, and, as this is intended to be a limited Measure, it has not been thought either necessary or desirable to cast the net wider.

Mr. George Wigg: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he tell us what steps have been taken by his Department to find out whether there is hardship among such widows living in other parts of the world?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I have said that we have no evidence of such hardship. I think it unlikely that there will be many such widows and if they are living in other parts of the world the probability is that they have gone there for special reasons which will have involved some financial consideration. At all events, we feel satisfied that there is no evidence of hardship in those cases.

Mr. Wigg: If the hon. Gentleman has not made inquiries, will he tell us how many widows there are in this category living outside Great Britain?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I have said that I have no knowledge of any although I dare say that as a result of this debate some evidence may be forthcoming—

Mr. Wigg: It will be too late then, will it not?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: We have no such evidence, and we thought it wrong to put any provision in the Bill to cover that type of case. The other provisions are common form for this type of Bill, but if any hon. Member has a point on any of them I will, with the permission of the House, try to deal with it when I reply to the debate.
In conclusion, may I say a word about the costs of the concessions involved. We have no way of knowing exactly how many there are of these pre-1918 widows. We believe that there cannot be more than 200 altogether, and 200 succssful claims at 32s. 6d. a week each would incur an annual expenditure of £17,000 at the outside. The cost of the increases to those of the post-1918 widows who are eligible should not exceed £53,000. That gives a total annual expenditure at the start of the scheme of £70,000 at the most. There will be some compensatory saving on National Assistance payments and, of course, the payments will, in the course of nature, tail off fairly rapidly as the years pass.
I hope that both sides of the House will view these proposals with sympathy and will give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Ede: On these occasions I sometimes wonder who is the more uncomfortable, the Under-Secretary of State or myself when he gets up and says that he is going to put into effect something that I have prepared. Sometimes that gets him into bad odour with his own side for accepting what I had prepared. When I get up and thank him for what he has prepared, and say that I am still satisfied, some of my hon. Friends think that I did not ask for enough when I started.
This matter gave me considerable concern when I was at the Home Office, and in July,1951, I received a deputation of Members from Northern Ireland, who were introduced to me by the present Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. The two principal spokesmen of the deputation were Lord Moyne and Mr. Conolly Gage, who was then the Member for Belfast, South. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant)
in his place tonight as showing that Ind Coope supports Guinness on this occasion. I welcome the fact that even trade rivalry can rise superior to the claims of justice and charity.
I was very greatly impressed by the case put forward, because, as the hon. Gentleman said, those of us whose hairs are entirely grey have memories of what the Royal Irish Constabularly had to face in the days of the Ascendancy, and it is to that extent fitting that a Conservative Government should make this act of reparation towards the widows of the men, who, in those days, had to stand considerable and continuous strain in circumstances of very great danger.
I, therefore, welcomed the approach that was made to me by the deputation that I have mentioned, and I was fortified in my view by a letter that I received two or three days afterwards from Mr. Conolly Gage. May I say with regard to the controversy which arose at Question time today, that I am greatly obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary for giving me access to the documents that relate to the circumstances of that interview, because it is exceedingly difficult to carry in one's head all the details of conversations that take place when one receives a deputation of that kind.
Although it does not sound very large in money, the fact is that it is very complicated in the way in which it deals with the details of legislation concerning ordinary pensions, widows pensions and police pensions. Taken singly, these matters are complicated enough but, when taken together and with the complications between the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary coming into the issue, the whole thing is apt to be thrown into confusion. It was very generous indeed of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, without any demur, to let me see the documents.
May I say, in passing, that when I was dealing with the Criminal Justice Bill in 1948, the then Leader of the Opposition wrote to me about some documents relating to the time when he was Home Secretary 37 years before. It never occurred to me that it would be proper to say that it was so long ago that we were really not going to be bothered with it We at once supplied him with the


information that he wanted. I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for carrying on that tradition.
Two or three days after receiving the deputation I received a letter from Mr. Conolly Gage. I think that it sets out the problem which we had to face so well that, with the permission of the House, I should like to read it. It makes a very good introduction to the subject which we have to discuss. Writing on 21st July, 1951, he used these words:
As arranged at our meeting on Thursday, I enclose below a short note on the position of widows of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, which Forces were disbanded in 1922. The widows of these two Forces can be divided into two classes, for example, those who became widows before 1918 (which I shall call the pre-1918 widows)"—
Of course, he does not mean that they were widows before 1918. I thought that it was a little unkind of the Joint Under-secretary of State to surviving constables when he suggested that there might be some additional widows.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: There may be.

Mr. Ede: But it is hardly kind to remind a man that he may leave a widow.
The letter continues:
and those who became widows after that date (which I shall call the existing widows).
1. Pre-1918 Widows.
These unfortunate people get no pension of any kind. Apparently, before 1918, the widow of a policeman in any Force in Great Britain and Ireland got no pension unless her husband was killed on Service. This position was remedied for all Forces, except the R.I.C. and the D.M.P.,"—
that is, the Dublin Metropolitan Police—
by, I think, the Police Pensions Regulations, 1948. For some reason people who became widows of members of the R.I.C. and D.M.P. before 1918were omitted. There cannot be a great number of them left; and their most unfortunate position, I am sure you will agree, should be remedied speedily by legislation.
2. 'Existing' Widows.
Under the 1948 Act the Home Office provided for 'existing' Police widows in Great Britain, and the Ulster Government, by a similar Act of 1949, did the same for 'existing' R.U.C. widows.
That is, of course, the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The effect of this legislation was to enable Chief Constables to recommend that a Police

widow's pension should be brought up to the National Insurance rate of 26s. a week. Unfortunately, R.I.C. widows and D.M.P. widows were again omitted. As a result such widows have a basic pension of £30 per annum increased to £42 under the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1944 and 1947. This is about £25 a year short of the National Insurance rate.
This has a particularly unfortunate effect where the husband also served in the R.U.C. This is because, under the arrangements for interlocking the R.I.C. and R.U.C. Pensions Schemes (which provide for service in both Services to be reckonable for R.U.C. pensions, under which England pays the R.I.C. proportion, while N.I. pays the R.U.C. portion) it is possible for the widow of a man with even more service in the R.U.C. than in the R.I.C. to have only an R.I.C. pension.
Hon. Members will realise how more complicated this became with every fresh sentence that was used by the deputation. The letter continued:
Suppose two men join the R.I.C. in 1908 and serve together in it until 1922. Assume one of them married during this period while the other remained single; then in 1922 they served in the R.U.C. until 1939; during the latter period the second man married; assume also both died in 1944. The first man's wife would get only an R.I.C. pension of £30 a year, while the second man's wife, because she married him during his R.U.C. service, would get a full R.U.C. pension, which could be brought up to the National Insurance rate.
You can readily understand what bitterness and heart-burning there is when three women live in the same street. The first woman's husband served longer than any of the others, yet she gets no pension at all because she became a widow before 1918. The second woman's husband has the second longest period of service; her pension is £42 a year, because she married her husband when he was serving in the R.I.C. The third woman's husband had the shortest period of service of all, but she gets a pension equal to National Insurance rates because she married her husband after he transferred to the R.U.C. You can imagine the feeling; yet I assure you that it can, and does happen.
I hope that this gives you sufficient information for your purpose. If there is anything further I can do, you have only got to tell me.
I thought it only fair to read the letter to the House, because it was prepared by learned counsel after full instructions. I should not like to attempt to paraphrase it, because I am quite sure that any paraphrase that was attempted would be considerably longer than the concise and effective way in which Mr. Gage set out the case that he came to put to me.
After considering the matter, I gave instructions in the office that an effort


should be made to formulate a scheme on the following lines:

"(1) The object of the scheme should be to ensure that

(a) no widow of a Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police policeman gets less than 26s. a week (the comparable figure today is 32s. 6d.) taking into account any other payment from public funds in the United Kingdom, provided she fulfils the conditions set out hereafter, and
(b) where the husband served in both the Royal Irish Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary the widow's pension shall be at the Royal Ulster Constabulary rate
(2) To qualify for inclusion in the scheme, the widow should be either sixty years of age or incapable of self-support, and should be resident in the British Islands on the day the scheme comes into force.
(3) The awards under the scheme should be discretionary and conditional upon reasonable proof of hardship. 
(4) The scheme should include widows who fulfil the above conditions who get no pensions at present." 
I am very glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been able to complete the investigations that were going on at that time, because those instructions were given just before I left office. The Dublin Metropolitan Police have disappeared from the picture because the considerations which apply to the other two forces did not apply and never have applied to them. I think that the proposals in the Bill do a tardy act of justice to this body of women. I should be interested to know how many of the widows who will benefit reside in Ireland outside the Six Counties; that is to say, in the area of the Irish Republic.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: May I help the right hon. Member? I think I said in the course of my speech that, as near as we can tell, the proportion is half.

Mr. Ede: I know that some of the widows there still live in circumstances of some little difficulty. This will be a recognition on the part of this House of the debt it owes to the men to whom they were married when there were very serious difficulties. I do not want to go back over the rights and wrongs of that particular issue. I was brought up as a Gladstonian Home Ruler and it is one of the regrets of my life that Mr. Gladstone's efforts at pacification in Ireland met with the disastrous actions from the other side of the House they

did meet. But that is now all dead and gone, and 60 years behind us.
There are still surviving some of the people involved in those troubles to whom the United Kingdom owes a debt which now will be reasonably discharged. I hope that the full case as presented to me by Ulster Members in 1951 has been made known to the House. I regret that we have had to wait 26 or 27 hours to arrive at the position in which we had hoped to be last night.
I trust this Measure will receive the unanimous approval of the House and that it will be regarded as a fitting answer to the deputation which I received as long ago as 1951. These women, to whom we owe such a debt, sometimes in their earlier years lived in a position of very great peril. In those difficult hours they sustained the men who were carrying out the orders of the Government in this country.

8.53 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia Ford: I should like to welcome this Bill and to say that I am sure that all Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland are grateful to the Government for having brought it before the House. It is perhaps appropriate that we should be discussing it on the centenary of Lord Carson's birth, for it is almost impossible to think of any matter relating to Ireland without recalling all he did for the people of Northern Ireland.
The Royal Irish Constabulary was, as we have been told, one of the oldest and certainly one of the finest police forces in the world. It was a semi-military force consisting of the best type of men, drawn from many places. There is no colonial constabulary force in existence today which does not owe something to the R.I.C., for recruits were trained at their depot in Phoenix Park, in Dublin. Their duty was to police the whole of Ireland, a duty which they performed with unswerving loyalty to the British Crown for over a century.
During the troubles, and as late as 1923, they suffered much hardship and behaved with great fortitude and discipline. Their casualties were proportionately higher even than those of our soldiers during the First World War, one in every 20 being killed and one in every 12 wounded. Lord Hardinge,


who presided over the Royal Commission at that time, said:
For the conduct, zeal and loyalty of the R.I.C. we have nothing but praise.
That is why I feel that we must be grateful that this money is at last to be paid to the widows of this gallant force, who, up to now, have not received one penny compensation.
Most of these widows—they are a gradually diminishing number—are over 70 years of age, and have been waiting 35 years for something to be done. This is surely a tardy measure of justice and perhaps a melancholy reminder of the injustice of Governments. For instance, pre-1918 widows received no compensation at all compared with a widow of a soldier in the First World War, and many have been living on the verge of starvation. Some of the letters which I have received from them have been heartbreaking. This Bill will bring a measure of comfort and security to these ageing women.
It also does away with some anomalies. Take, for example, the case of two men who joined the R.I.C. in 1912. No. 1 married in 1917, No. 2 in 1924. Both joined the R.U.C. in 1922; both retired in 1930; both died in 1936. The widow of No. 1 got a pension based on service only. The widow of No 2 also got a pension based on service, but, as she had married later, when her husband had already joined the R.U.C, her pension could be raised to the level of the National Insurance pension. There was no such power in the case of the first widow, as she had married before her husband had joined the R.U.C, although both men had done the same length of service.
I am especially glad that I am able to support this Bill, as this was a matter which my father always had very much at heart. I would mention also Mr. Conolly Gage, whom hon. Members will remember so well in this House, and pay tribute to all he did and is still doing for these men and widows. However, I do not think I should be true to my father's wishes or to Mr. Gage's efforts or, indeed, to the feelings of many people in Northern Ireland today, if I did not urge the Government, who have at last recognised the injustice done to the widows, to recognise also the injustice to the men.
After the R.I.C. was disbanded in 1922 the greatest political pressure was put on those men to join the R.U.C. I think it is true to say that had those 1,000 or so men not joined the Ulster Constabulary no effective police force could have been formed. They provided the nucleus from which the R.U.C. was built up. Without them law and order could not have been maintained in Northern Ireland. These men, when they joined the R.U.C., found that they forfeited the compensation payable to them on leaving the R.I.C., while men who joined the Civil Service or any other responsible post under the Crown, and even those who joined the Civic Guard in Eire, received full compensation.
The terms of disbandment were so constituted that it was only those who joined another police force who were so handicapped—and so it was that these brave men, who joined in response to repeated appeals by the English Government, were penalised for doing their duty. Small wonder that they feel bitter about it, as do a great many others in Northern Ireland today, for we realise that we owe our lives and security to those brave men. Although we are glad that the most glaring of the many injustices to the widows of this fine body of men have been remedied, we are also resolved not to relax our efforts until very injustice has been recognised.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I do not oppose this Bill, nor shall I delay its Second Reading. However, the House will not be surprised to hear that I hold no brief whatever for the Royal Irish Constabulary. Nor do I share the enthusiasm about those men and their exploits that has been exhibited on both sides of the House tonight. As for the R.U.C., I have no time for them at all. While, doubtless, some of these R.I.C. men were good, many of them were not good, and in most parts of Ireland their name does not stand so high as it appears to do in London.
I was very interested when the Under-secretary was pointing out that these men had served their country so well. He did not tell the House which country it was he had in mind. I wondered if he would state whether they were serving their country or somebody else's country. Still, it would be very wrong to penalise these aged widows for anything which their husbands did or might have done.
I, too, have received a number of letters from these ladies and I agree that they make very distressing reading indeed. There cannot be many of them still surviving. Indeed, speaking about the pre-1918 widows, one is inclined to wonder by what means they have managed to survive during the last 36 years.
On grounds of humanity alone, and not for some of the reasons which have been suggested this evening as a recompense for what their husbands did—of most of which I still disapprove—I will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

9.1 p.m.

Sir David Campbell: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mrs. Ford) in thanking those who are responsible for the Bill. The Measure will remove many unjust anomalies which have formed the subject of representations in the past. I am also grateful for the warm tributes which have been paid not only to the R.I.C. and the R.U.C., but also to the efforts of my friend, Mr. Conolly Gage. Mr. Gage and the other Ulster Unionist Members who have striven for the removal of the anomalies will rejoice when the Bill becomes an Act.
I have also received very many pathetic letters from R.I.C. widows appealing for help. Most of the writers will benefit from the Bill, but there are some whose cases are not covered, and they are widows who married after their hushands had been disbanded or had retired on pension from the R.I.C. They rightly claim that their husbands served the British Government most courageously and loyally through most dangerous and trying times, and they also claim that in some instances the arduous duties undermined the health of their husbands and shortened their lives. They point out that there are widows who are receiving pensions because of their husbands' service in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and that their own husbands gave equally loyal and equally long service.
I appreciate that it would be unreasonable to grant pensions to widows whose husbands served only a short period in the R.I.C., but I appeal to my right hon. Friend to amend the Bill in the Committee stage so that pensions can be granted to widows in this category whose

husbands served at least 10 years in the R.I.C.
I very earnestly hope that the Bill will be passed without undue delay. Many who would have benefited from it if it had been enacted as it should have been many years ago are no longer alive. Those who remain are very old people.
I also wish to add a word to what my hon. Friend said about the claims of R.I.C. pensioners. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to give further early consideration to their claims and to receive a deputation on the subject.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: There are one or two comments I want to make on this Bill. The present Government looked at the payment of pensions and the welfare of pensioners from a new point of view, and decided to include the Ministry of Pensions in the Ministry of National Insurance. I was very worried about what the results were going to be, but I am glad to say that many of my fears have not been realised and that the Ministry of Pensions and the spirit behind it remain unimpaired.
I am desperately anxious to see the philosophy behind the Ministry of Pensions extended. It is one of the things of which this country should be most proud. Ever since I came into this House, in 1945, I haveworked for the transfer of the payment of pensions from the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, in the case of the Army, and from Greenwich, as the comparable place for the Navy, to the Ministry of Pensions. I appeal to the Home Secretary to look at the possibility of transferring the payment of those pensions to the Ministry of Pensions in its new form and indeed, perhaps I might go even wider—I must not go too far or I shall be out of order—and suggest that he should look at the payment of police pensions as a whole for transfer to that organisation.
The country does not discharge its responsibility or its liability merely by giving so many shillings or pounds a week. Responsibility to the pensioner must be to enable him or her to live as full a life as possible. We can never make up in terms of money to a woman for the loss of her husband, to children for the loss of the father, or to a man for the loss of a limb. That is quite hopeless.
The most we can do is to try to ease the burden and to build round the person the feeling that there are those who care. One of the admirable things that the Ministry of Pensions has done is to create in the mind of the pensioner not that he is confronted with a Government Department, but that there is a body of people who are concerned with his well-being.
If the payment of these pensions long ago—30 years ago—when these women were really in need, had been governed by that kind of philosophy, they would not have remained neglected is they have for that period. I am very concerned—and here again I realise that I am trespassing on your good nature, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I go too far—and greatly worried because the pensioners of the First World War are now getting old and we are completely oblivious and no research is being done—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go too far.

Mr. Wigg: I will use this only as an illustration, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. So far, we are unaware of the problems which will be thrown up by the effect of deprivation of husband or father, as the pensioner becomes old. What is true for the Service pensioner is also true about the women who will benefit under the Act. Many of them are now getting so old that they cannot work. There is the possibility of a very lonely old age, which can be terribly acute where there are no children. If the woman becomes ill in the very early years of her life, then, after the loss of the husband and when her friends go, as a widow she is left completely friendless. That is an obligation which I believe will be increasingly recognised in the administration of the pensioning authority.
Therefore, I plead with the Home Secretary. I intend to do it as part of a consistent policy every time matters of this kind come up. The State does not discharge its responsibility merely by handing out a few shillings. Its responsibility goes much further. I am not a 100 per cent. admirer of the Royal Irish Constabulary, not as I saw it operating in Ireland, only for a limited period, but as I saw it operating in Palestine when I was serving there as a young soldier. I have often wondered whether some of

our subsequent difficulties in Palestine were due to the way in which those men behaved.
I am not here because I am lost in praise of the Royal Irish Constabulary, but they were doing their duty, as the hon. Member for Down, North (Mrs. Ford) said, in accordance with the demand of public opinion and the orders of their superiors at the time, and they should have been looked after much better than they have been. As the hon. Lady pointed out, this was a semi-military force, and for that reason it should get not the worst of two worlds but the best of two worlds. These men should get the best that can be given to them in their capacity as policemen, and we should give the best that can be given to the widows of soldiers whose lives have been shortened in the service of their country.
The Home Secretary is a humane man, and I plead with him to be kind enough to give these people all the advantages of the welfare services which are already in existence and are there for the asking. It is not possible to do so in the case of Southern Ireland, but it could be done for Northern Ireland and this country. This Bill will have my support in any case, but if the Minister will use his great influence to see that this principle becomes a permanent part of pensions philosophy—with regard not only to this issue but every similar issue—he will have my further support.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Peter Remnant: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has put me in something of a difficulty, not because of the remarks he made about certain firms, but because he will recognise a remark he once made that if he found himself in agreement with an hon. Friend of mine he would feel highly suspicious about it. I hope that he will not be subject to any embarrassment if I tell him that I find myself in agreement with him tonight. I applaud the Government's action in bringing in this Bill, but so many different rates have been quoted that I am slightly mixed up as to which is the maximum and which is the minimum.
My father, who was a very great friend of the police of this country, would have wished me to inquire whether my hon.
Friend can give an assurance that the maximum which will be allowed to these widows is not in excess of that which may be drawn by the "pre-Oaksey" widows in this country. There are many similarities between the two classes. If I am correct in thinking that the maximum both categories can draw is 32s. 6d., then I suggest that that is too low.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I do not know how it was that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) came to confuse that spring which is provided on the banks of the Liffey with the name of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant), who is connected with quite a different species of liquor.

Mr. Ede: I made it quite clear which firm the hon. Member for Wokingham belonged to, and I said that I was glad to see him supporting an Irish firm.

Mr. Bing: Only the temperance of my right hon. Friend would ever have allowed the comparison to occur.
The hon. Lady the Member for Down, North (Mrs. Ford) commented that this was the centenary of the birth of Lord Carson, or Sir Edward Carson as we knew him better in the North of Ireland. I think Lord Carson would have been very surprised indeed to know that he would have to wait for the centenary of his birth before the representatives whom he arranged to have sent to this Parliament did anything about the widows of the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
I will not go into the merits of this matter, as some of my hon. Friends have done; I would only suggest that this is perhaps the way in which we ought to look at it: that Connolly, when he was being taken to execution, was asked to offer some excuse for those who were going to execute him, and all he said was:
I honour all brave men who do their duty.
It is a long time since the troubles took place in which the R.I.C. were involved, and it would be wrong for us to revive questions of that sort and to put on the heads of their widows any consideration of the political motives which, 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, impelled their husbands to act as they did.
If I am detaining the House at all, it is only for a moment or two in order to give hon. Members opposite a lesson, for which this Bill provides a very good opportunity, on the desire for political pressure. Think what they have done. On the centenary of Lord Carson's birth they have at last put some pressure on the Tory Government. But they were sent here as the representatives of Ireland, so they like to say. Here is a prime Irish question. It is quite true, as Conolly Gage delicately pointed out to the then Home Secretary—and it would be disrespectful to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell) to say that we all regret the absence of Mr. Conolly Gage, but we wish it were possible in some redistribution to find an opportunity to reinclude him, but not to the exclusion of the present Member—that one of the great problems was that the Northern Irish Government did not give the proper pensions to the people who came into the R.U.C. The Northern Ireland Government may not have been able to afford it. I do not know. Perhaps we shall have some explanation from someone better informed on the subject than those who have spoken on this issue up to now.
At any rate, why is that we have to make up here pensions which, properly speaking, should be made up for the members who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell us. Why is not this burden assumed by the Government of Northern Ireland?
The real lesson here is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent Northern Ireland should have some ideas of their own position and authority in a House as evenly balanced as this. They sit here thanking the Home Secretary for the crumbs which he throws them, but they need not do that at all. All they need say is: "This Transport Bill is a curious English Measure. It does not affect Northern Ireland because in Northern Ireland Conservative policy is to have all the forms of road transport State-owned. Therefore, unless you are prepared to pass a Measure, on the centenary of Lord Carson's birth, to do justice to the widows of the R.I.C. in terms which we believe are favourable, we will not vote for the Transport Bill."
Of course, it is too late to say that, for that Measure has been passed, but as the years go by there will no doubt


be some Measure of importance which the Government will introduce, although nobody can immediately suppose what it might be, and there will be an opportunity for the Northern Ireland Members to do something. It is not sufficient for them to come here and sit. That was not the object—just to vote like fodder in the Lobby for every Conservative Measure. Their duty should be to bring these Irish matters forward.
When we had Private Members' Bills, what did they all vote for? Animals. Never a word for the widows of the Irish Constabulary. I suppose that when all the animals had been looked after, they then turned to the widows, but that is not the sort of spirit we should see from Irish representatives.

Mr. Phelim O'Neill: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman recommending blackmail as a suitable long-term policy for any political party?

Mr. Bing: I am saying: Why should those who invoked the name of Lord Carson abandon his policy? Indeed it was the policy pursued by the R.I.C. itself, as hon. Members from Northern Ireland will well remember, because he sat for a long time in the Northern Ireland House. If his widow is still alive, I hope that she will be one of those to secure a pension under the Bill which we are discussing. The late Mr. Nixon, the Home Secretary will be interested to know—I looked up the Northern Ireland Hansard to see if I could get the exact words—paraded Belfast with a banner on which was written: "Down with the Home Secretary" or something to that effect. On its being pointed out to him that that was hardly suitable to a policeman, he pointed out that he was not doing it in his capacity as a policeman, but as the grand master of one of the Orange lodges to which he belonged.
That seemed to show an independence of spirit which is unfortunately lacking in the very distinguished representation which we have now from Northern Ireland. They ought to have got on to this long ago. In fact, it is rather the trouble that the Conservative Party never tome to do their duty by people until they are so old that they cannot really appreciate it. I remember that when we first came into this House, one of the

first things we did was to give pensions to the five or six surviving widows of the soldiers who fought at Omdurman against the Madi. They had been forgotten except in poems and speeches at elections.
It is not sufficient for hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland just to come and make a speech on the 12th July or some other suitable occasion in the House of Commons and not do anything about it. They are in a position of authority. They ought to be interested in Northern Ireland, because they are in a position of authority to command this Government to do what they want. They have only to withdraw their votes.

Mr. William Wellwood (Londonderry): Can the hon. Gentleman account for the absence of the two hon. Members from Northern Ireland who sit on the benches opposite?

Mr. Bing: Yes. I do not quite know why they should come to support the R.U.C. So far as one of them is concerned—if the hon. Gentleman wishes for an answer—he was put by his party for two years under the most deplorable conditions, couped up in an iron cage on the deck of a ship floating in evil weather in Belfast Lough. Why he should come here personally to vote for the widows of the people who did that I do not know, and I think that it says a great deal for his decency and propriety that he is not here to divide the House against the Bill.
I am not dealing with those people who are opposed to R.I.C. but with those people who, the hon. Lady said quite frankly, are the people who keep Ireland for us. If in fact they perform this menial but useful service, she ought at least to do something for them. It does not encourage people to have to wait for the centenary of Lord Carson's birth before their aged widows even get a small pittance.
The Home Secretary will not perhaps get all the prodding he should get from the Northern Ireland Members and they will not do what is in their power to do, and that is force the Government to do the things they want. Blackmail was the policy for years of Lord Carson. What is all the fuss about? If in fact they are not prepared to exercise that legitimate political pressure which they used to exercise in the past, let me say


this to the Home Secretary, that I hope that he will accept the views put forward and look on this Measure in a general way, and treat these men as though they had been soldiers and as though they had been fighting a war, because that is very often what they were doing.
We do not now decide which soldiers we shall pension, or which widows we shall give a pension to, because they happened to be engaged in a war of which we approve or disapprove. We treat all soldiers alike. I support the plea of the hon. Member for Belfast, South and say that I hope that this Bill will be extended to some extent to treat, as though they were soldiers, the people concerned.
We should have from the Home Secretary, or from the Joint Under-Secretary of State or from somebody from Northern Ireland, an explanation of why it is that if anyone was foolish enough to join the R.U.C., he was so much worse off than if he had not done so. That may be just the cynicism of the Northern Ireland Government—I do not know. Unless hon. Members opposite think that that is a natural reward for having joined the R.U.C., they ought to offer the House some explanation.
I hope that the Home Secretary, in the spirit in which speeches generally have 'been made upon this matter, will see that the whole of the pensions are reviewed, that an attempt is made to fit them into the general scheme of pensions, and that these men are not worse off simply because they happen to have been in Northern Ireland and happen to have been fighting in a war which hon. Gentlemen opposite have forgotten and which most of them would rather not have brought up again.

9.26 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I had not intended to address the House tonight, because I know that many hon. Members are anxious to get home and I will be very brief. But I could not resist the opportunity that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) gives me to welcome him back to the House. It is a long time since we have seen him. We know him in Northern Ireland as the "horror from Hornchurch"—meaning no disrespect to his constituency. We are delighted to see him back amongst us.

We would be bitterly hurt if any unfortunate chance were to remove him from our midst, because every time he speaks it means several thousand more votes to each of us who happen to sit for Northern Ireland constituencies.
I cannot help drawing the attention of the House to this sort of tactic which the hon. and learned Member so often employs. Here is an occasion upon which we are giving a Second Reading to a Measure to bring some measure of justice to certain widows of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who are suffering in a very grievous way from having been neglected by successive Governments in the past; and yet the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch comes to the House and uses the occasion to make amusing, no doubt, entertaining, no doubt, but on the whole, rather cheap, nasty and tawdry political use of the occasion for his own sinister ends, whatever those ends may be. No doubt he has consulted his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) before coming here. No doubt it all has something to do with some sinister "goings on" in his own party in a dim conclave below.

Mr. Delargy: I respect the hon. and gallant Member very much indeed. He is talking about cheapness, tawdriness, and so on. Would he not confess that as he is speaking about someone who is not even present in the House, he himself is being rather cheap?

Captain Orr: I suggest to the hon. Member, whom I hold in the same respect in which he holds me, whatever that may be—

Mr. Delargy: I thought the hon. and gallant Member thought more highly of me than that.

Captain Orr: I ask the hon. Member, in return, whether it is not a cheap use of the debating facilities of this place to use a Measure such as this for a political purpose—

Mr. Delargy: The hon. and gallant Member said that my hon. and learned Friend had consulted somebody else.

Captain Orr: —which the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch has done? He has used this occasion to suggest that in some way I and my colleagues from Northern Ireland have been failing in our duty up to now


because, as he put it, in his no doubt amusing and facile way, we had to await the centenary of Edward Carson's birth. It is perhaps relevant, in this respect, to point out that the same sort of justice was not done to police widows in this country until 1948, and no doubt the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch might reproach himself and some of his hon. Friends as well as some hon. Members on this side of the House for that.

Dr. Horace King: The hon. and gallant Member has referred to the fact that justice has been done in this country to police widows. Perhaps he would like to know that there is still a group of police widows who are being treated unjustly at this very moment.

Captain Orr: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that interjection. That is perfectly true. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch will use every effort to see that justice is done for these widows, and no doubt his efforts will be successful before his centenary.
I simply want to commend this Bill to the House. Let us forget the little bit of Irishism which has intruded itself into the Second Reading. Let us hope that as the Bill passes through its various stages my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will not forget those men of the R.U.C. who formerly served in the R.I.C. and who have been ill-treated in certain respects up to now. I hope that in the near future he will receive a deputation on this question from those of us who sit for Ulster constituencies. I hope the Bill will now be given a Second Reading.

Mr. Bing: Before the hon. and gallant Member sits down, perhaps he will tell the House how it is that members of the R.I.C. who joined the R.U.C. are so much worse off than if they had not done so?

Mr. Speaker: I think that that is outside the scope of this Bill.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

Committee Tomorrow.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (WIDOWS' PENSIONS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—(Queen's Recommendation, signified.)

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment of supplementary allowances and of pensions to persons who are or have been widows of certain former members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament at rates prescribed by regulations made under the said Act and in such cases prescribed by the regulations as the Secretary of State thinks fit—

(a) of supplementary allowances to widows of former members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are entitled to pensions payable under the enactments relating to the pensions of that force;
(b) of pensions to such widows who are not so entitled, and
(c) of supplementary allowances and pensions respectively to persons who, having been such widows as are mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this resolution, have remarried and again become widows.

—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Sir Edward Keeling discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Niall Macphersom added.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

U.N. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (U.K. GRANT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

9.34 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: Before the House adjourns I should like to call attention to the United Nations Extended Technical Assistance Programme, and particularly to Britain's contribution to this work. I and a number of my hon. Friends have raised this very point in recent months at Question time and in debate. We have complained that the British contribution to this work is too small, and we have been generally brushed aside—I do not think that is too strong a phrase—with the assertion that the British contribution is the second largest in the world.
With the greatest respect, that is not enough, because, with the exception of the U.S.S.R., which has only just begun to contribute to this programme on a very small scale, we are easily the second wealthiest country in the world. Therefore, although our contribution is the second largest, the question still remains whether the contribution is commensurate with our wealth.
We are very lucky on this subject in that there exists a very fair criterion or measuring rod against which the adequacy or inadequacy of any nation's contribution to this fund can be measured. Because, whereasthe different nations are invited to contribute whatever sum they choose to the United Nations Extended Technical Assistance Budget, it is quite otherwise with the regular budget of the United Nations, which keeps all the machinery running, which pays for the Assembly and all the rest of the essential machinery of this great international organisation. For that regular budget the different nations are assessed, they are taxed, they are told what they will pay by an International Contributions Committee on which this country is represented. I have never heard of anyone saying that the work of this committee is unfair, or that it is anything other than most admirably planned.
I have been looking rather carefully at the assessments fixed by this committee of the different contributions required of the different nations to the regular budget of the United Nations, and I have been comparing those assessments with what they choose to pay to the United Nations Extended Technical Assistance Programme. The first thing we find is that by far the most numerous contributors to the programme from the point of view of numbers are either very small countries or countries where the average income per head is very low. I do not know what view any other fair-minded person would take, but my view is that one would not expect those countries to be making an enormous contribution to such a programme.
When we come to the larger and relatively wealthier countries, I have taken the trouble to draw up their contributions to this programme and their assessments to the United Nations regular budget in the form of a table. I very much wish that on; this occasion ordinary back-bench Members had the advantage which Ministers have at Question time of saying that they will circulate the table in the Official Report, because it will be impossible in this short time to present the table verbally to the House in a way which would make any sense. However, I have sent a copy of it to the Minister, who has been kind enough to tell me that there are no substantial inaccuracies in it, and therefore I can summarise its effect.
There are six substantial nations which generously choose to contribute to the United Nations Extended Technical Assistance Programme at a percentage rate which is markedly higher than the rate at which they are assessed to contribute to the United Nations regular budget. These outstandingly generous nations are Brazil, Canada, Denmark—which from the point of view of percentage heads the list—the Netherlands—which come second in the same respect—Turkey, and, of course, the largest in scale, the United States of America, which is assessed to pay 33⅓ per cent. of the United Nations budget, but which is willing to pay 54·76 per cent. or may be 60 per cent. of the Extended Technical Assistance Programme.
After those six outstandingly generous nations we come to another group of five


nations where, as near as a decimal point or two, the percentage contribution to the two bodies is exactly equal. These are the Argentine, Australia, Belgium, New Zealand and Sweden.
Now we drop below the line and we find France and, somewhat to my surprise, Norway, who contribute to this budget roughly speaking four-fifths of what they should be contributing. In the case of Norway it is fair to add that if one takes account of the 10 million kroner scheme which the Norwegians have for special assistance to a large area of fishing villages on the west coast of India, it would immediately carry them right up to the class of the generous.
Alas, the contribution of the United Kingdom, according to my calculation, was last year less than two-thirds of what it should have been. It is true that it has been increased since last year, but it is still less than three-quarters of what it should be by what I believe to be a perfectly fair test. Then we have the Communist countries. We are glad that some of them contribute at all, but it is perfectly right that we should draw attention to the fact that, judged by their assessments to contribute to the United Nations regular budget, these initial contributions of theirs need to be looked at very seriously with a view to increasing them. Finally, as one would have expected, lower than the Communists is the Union of South Africa, which contributes nothing. To be fair, I should mention that Switzerland contributes generously to the programme, although she is not a budget of the United Nations?
I want to ask one single main question. If I ask any others it is because we have had the good fortune to start this debate half an hour earlier than I had expected. The single important question is why, except for the Communists and the Fascists, of the substantially wealthy countries we are at the bottom of the list when we compare what we choose to pay to this programme with what we are fairly assessed to pay to the regular budget of the United Nations.
I hope that the Minister who replies will not say that this is because of what we pay into the Colombo Plan because, apart from small sums paid for technical assistance, our contribution to Colombo is in the nature of a repayment of war

debts. I hope that he will not say it is because of the wonderful things which we do for colonial development and welfare, because with all that has been said in a recent very learned Colonial Office publication which attempts to explain away the sterling balances, the fact remains that in post-war years the Colonies, with their dollar earning, have been financing us rather than vice versa.
That is not a party point. It was equally true when we on this side of the House were in power. In any case, the Netherlands have colonial responsibilities which are proportionately equal to ours, and we would not let them get away with the idea that they were entitled to contribute below the line on the ground that they were helping their Colonies. And, in fact, their contribution is 90 per cent. more than their strict assessment.
If we can have an answer to that and the Minister has time, I hope that he will say a word or two on a speech which caused me the greatest distress when I read it. It was made on 28th September by our representative, Sir Clifford Norton, at the Economic Committee of the General Assembly, which at that time was considering what should be the total size of the budget for the Extended Technical Assistance Programme for 1954. I am sure that the House will appreciate that there are two stages connected with this budget. The nations meet first to decide what shall be the total budget. Subsequently, they meet in order that each nation may say what part of the budget it will contribute.
At this meeting to discuss the total size of the budget the Director-General of the Extended Technical Assistance Programme pointed out very forcibly that the programme was in a state of crisis because, with a budget of around 23 million to 25 million dollars, it had in 1953 and would have in 1954 much less than enough to fulfil the practical and useful requests currently being made upon it.
How does our representative respond to that situation? Does he stand up on behalf of Britain in this, which was, after all, to some extent the forum of the world, and does he on our behalf urge and plead with all the countries of the world to be more generous and to allow this extended programme to expand in 1954 as it was intended that it should?
No, he does nothing of the sort. He says, and one could almost hear the sanctimonious Treasury brief rolling off his lips in the unctuous language we are accustomed to hear from time to time from the Dispatch Box in ths House:
It is sometimes said that the programme is in a state of crisis. The implication is that unless something drastic is done it will soon collapse. I wonder whether that is not a wrong way of looking at it.
Who said the programme was going to collapse? If the Minister wants a debating point, I will make a present of it to him. I did; I said on 16th July that it was in a state of complete disintegration. That was a piece of exaggeration, on which I was corrected at the time by the Parliamentary Secretary. But our representative in New York was not answering me; he was there to answer the speech of the Director-General and the Director-General had not said the programme was in collapse. He had said, perfectly correctly, that all expansion and all new demands were having to be turned down and would be turned down all through 1954 through want of funds. Why did our representative not deal with what was suggested, instead of putting up an Aunt Sally for the sake of knocking it down? He went on to say:
Although the limitation of funds has caused difficulties, it will generally be agreed that such a situation is healthier than one in which surplus funds would be in search of projects.
What hypocrisy. Who had ever suggested in the committee that there was any possibility of getting into a situation in which there would be a surplus of funds in search of projects? It is as if one were standing over a man suffering the agonies of malnutrition and patting him on the back, saying: "Lucky fellow, how much better off you are than the man over there who has just died of a surfeit of lampreys." I am sorry, but it makes me quite ashamed of my countrymen that things of this sort are said on our behalf.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I think the hon. Baronet should make quite clear that, while the words may be the words of our representative, the intonation could not be expressed, because the intonation given by the hon. Baronet creates an impression which is no doubt outside that which was given by our representative.

Sir R. Acland: If the hon. Member, after this discussion, will, in the Smoking Room, read the words in any tone of voice he wishes in order to make them sound like a trumpet call to the peoples of the world to give this programme more support, I will give him all the assistance I can to conjure up necessary tones. I want to know whether Sir Clifford Norton was speaking about this on his own behalf or on the instructions of Her Majesty's Ministers, because, in the latter case, we shall know who to get at.
Sir Clifford Norton might have known the actual position was such as described by the Director-General at the World Health Organisation in January in these words:
The known amounts of Technical Assistance Funds to be made available to the World Health Organisation this year…
1954—
…fall substantially short of the amounts expected during the planning stages and are inadequate to meet the immediate requirements of the organisation.
Remember, this is an organisation on which the life and death of millions of our fellow citizens will depend this year. He says:
…the funds now known to be available from Technical Assistance sources in 1954 do not meet the cost of financing projects in operation from 1953. Without making any provision whatever for even the most urgent of new projects, the shortfall for Technical Assistance activities"—
this is the World Health organisation only—
is 1,188,688 dollars.
Here is another. It comes from Bolivia, and it is one of the most remarkable of the lot. Just think how hopeful is the future for the peoples of many underdeveloped countries when we find an independent country like Bolivia with enough confidence in the United Nations to ask for foreigners to be sent into the heart of the Bolivian Government to occupy key posts in their Civil Service to do this work, which is the first requirement in so many of these countries in order that they may advance in social and economic development.
I think I am right in saying that the Bolivian Government asked for 10 such persons to be sent through the United Nations. This week I have received a letter which was written on 4th February


from Hugh Keenleyside, who is Director-General of that part of the Extended Technical Assistance Programme administered through United Nations itself. He states:
This year, however, we have been forced to reduce the number still further"—
that is the number of international civil servants going to Bolivia—
from six to four purely for fiscal reasons.
And our representative says that is ever so much healthier than if you have surplus funds searching round for projects.
What about the future? I think there are signs that we as a nation will be obliged in the next few years to pull up our socks. I wish to refer to a report which has just been presented to Mr. Harold Stassen, the Director of America's Foreign Operations Administration. It is a report made by Mr. Eric Johnston, Chairman of America's International Development Advisory Board. The conclusion of the report is:
The Board believes that despite imperfections of organisation and any failure that might have occurred the Technical Assistance Programme is one of the world's great movements and the most popular of all the United Nations programmes in the economic and social field.
The report from Eric Johnston recommends that within five years the budget for this fund shall be doubled. It recommends also—and I do not think we have any right to say this is ungenerous, because it would seem to be perfectly reasonable and proper—that the American percentage of this doubled fund should fall from 60 per cent. of the total, as it now is, to not more than 50 per cent. of the total.
If that American report goes through, it will mean that our contribution will have to be increased very notably indeed. I hope the Foreign Office—and to be fair I think some of them are on our side over this—will recognise that the next decision has to be made in September, and that they have just about seven months in which to get our Treasury to see sense. Although in a general way I should not be very favourably disposed to a proposition that the British Government should respond to any form of American pressure, I hope that there will be some approach from the State Department to the British Treasury with the object of getting something done.
In about two minutes, to allow time for one or two other hon. Members who wish to do so to take part in the debate, I would put one further consideration. If we look at the latest Report on the Colombo Plan, Cmd. 9016, we find on page 4 that in seven years of the Colombo Plan, up to the middle of 1957, the Commonwealth Governments were to have spent £8 million on technical assistance. If we look at page 106 we find that in three years we have spent £894,000 on technical assistance; that is to say, that nearly half of the time has gone by and we have spent less than an eighth of the money. We provided up to 30th June. 1953, 177 expert advisers, whereas the United Nations Technical Assistance Programme provided the same countries of South-East Asia, the Colombo countries, with 1,308, and could have provided more if finance had been available.
The South-East Asian countries were asking the United Nations for more experts, and the United Nations, if they had had the funds, would have been able to have found the experts. Here we have two overlapping plans for a technical assistance programme in the same area.In one of them, the United Nations plan, we have a demand for experts, a potential supply of experts, but no finance for sending them. In the other, the Colombo Plan, we seem to have plenty of money stored up, voted and approved, but there is no demand for experts, or else we cannot supply them. Would it not be sensible to see if we could get together about that, and use a little of the funds available and not being spent in the Colombo technical assistance plan to give a little more support where the money could very rapidly be turned into the form of experts doing their job on the spot?

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: Everybody is grateful to the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) for raising this subject for debate once more, and nobody would disagree with him that it would be of benefit not only to ourselves but to every member of the United Nations if the funds made available for the Technical Assistance Programme could be considerably increased. We all


know that the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation were keyed to a figure very much below that for which they originally budgeted, when it seemed, year by year, that the Governments members of the United Nations would increase their contributions as the work progressed and expanded.
However, the situation is not quite so bad as the hon. Baronet painted it. He did mention, but only in a very casual aside, that we have increased this year our own contribution, and the total amount pledged at the last conference by 70 Governments amounted to 24,300,000 dollars. That is a considerable increase over the money which was available the year before. It is true that all that money, although voted and pledged, will not be available for use this year. The reason is a technical one which, I confess, I do not quite understand, that the cash will not be forthcoming in time, and, therefore, the various Special Agencies of the United Nations are having to operate at a lower budget than they would had all the money been ready to their hands.
The World Health Organisation, for example, is operating on a budget of 2,800,000 dollars instead of the nearly 4 million dollars it expected for this year. But adjustments have been made—I believe they are no more than accountants'adjustments—to make available—

It being Ten o Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

Mr. Nicolson: Adjustments have been made to make available to the World Health Organisation more money than the small figure of 2,800,000 dollars by borrowing ahead from the Technical Assistance Programme funds against future allocations. All the same, as the hon. Baronet indicated in 'his quotation from the remarks of the Director-General, it means that they will not be able to meet all their obligations and fulfil all their plans.
This is the important point. The year 1954 will be a relatively good one for the Special Agencies. The low point was 1953. For instance, we have reports

from the Agencies comparing 1953 with which showed that the work of the Agencies had declined tremendously over the two years. To give just one example from the World Health Organisation, in 1953 there were 167 health projects which were financed from the Technical Assistance Programme and in 1953 the number of projects dropped to 121. In fact, the momentum was in the opposite direction.
I entirely agree with the hon. Baronet that it would be an act not only of charity but also of self-interest if Her Majesty's Government felt able, after discussions during the next six or seven months, to increase their grant to the Technical Assistance Programme at the next pledging conference.
I feel that the Special Agencies have not sufficient public backing in this country. There is not sufficient knowledge anywhere in this country of their work, and they have become tainted, quite wrongly and unfairly, by the political stigma which has become attached to the United Nations Organisation ever since it was set up shortly after the end of the war. It would be an advantage if the Foreign Office were able to publish in the form of a White Paper or a popular pamphlet some information about our contribution to the United Nations Agencies, the way in which the money which we have contributed has been used and how it had helped the less developed countries of the world, and how that development will in the long run, if not very soon, redound to our own advantage by creating markets overseas in which we can sell our goods.
I shall not put to the House the arguments based on grounds of humanity and political advantage, for they have obviously been stated many times. I have two final points to make. The first is that an impression is growing among those, like myself, who are interested in these matters but cannot claim to have any inside knowledge, that there is undue extravagance in the overhead management of the various organisations. I should like to know from my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that our own accountants can investigate the way in which the money, to which we make a substantial contribution, is being spent and how it is divided between the overheads and the interests of the beneficiaries If it once got about that the


money which the British taxpayer is ultimately contributing is being spent upon cocktail parties in Rome or lavish hospitality in Paris or New York, the whole basis upon which we attempt to wring more money out of the Treasury would collapse.
My second point is to ask whether it would not be possible when we next go to the pledging conference to set an example to the other countries of the world by pledging ourselves to a definite sum for a period of years. My hon. Friend may say that we cannot pledge ourselves in such a definite manner to sums of public money, but I would point out that these grants are made as grants-in-aid and that many other grants-in-aid, not necessarily to international bodies but to many bodies of our own, are, in fact, pledged for a period of years.
How can an organisation plan its activities satisfactorily if it does not know whether it will get less or more money during the coming year? It seems only sensible, not only for making easier the work of those who manage these Agencies but in our own interest to see that our money is usefully employed, to make this pledge for at least three years of whatever sum we decide on.
No money has ever been better spent than upon the work of these Agencies. We are financing experts who are able, with the knowledge they draw from the Western Universities, to go out to backward countries and pass on that knowledge with immediate practical results, so that the health and the agricultural outlook of the world are improved. We hope to set an example because more than any other country we have had experience of developing the great untapped areas of the world. Here, in an international sphere, we are once more presented with that opportunity.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I rise to join the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) for raising this subject. It is extraordinary to hear that up to 1945 the idea of technical aid of this kind was almost unknown.
Since 1945 we have seen this new, international, technical assistance to the

under-privileged and under-developed countries of the world, and I support one of the points made by the hon. Member opposite that the United Nations programme and resources are inadequate to the needs of the underdeveloped areas. Nevertheless, a good deal of progress is being made. If this country, which has shown leadership in this kind of thing in the past, were to increase its contribution we could hope for an international response.
My hon. Friend emphasised that there has been an improvement in the work of the World Health Organisation, but there is fear that it is slipping back. I was rather disturbed to see in the Press release of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations for December, 1953, a statement attributed to the Deputy-Director General of the F.A.O. in regard to the Technical Assistance Programme. It contained these words:
The number of F.A.O. operators rose steadily from 173 at the beginning of 1952 to 313 at the end of that year, and then advanced more slowly to 334 by the end of July, 1953. By the end of October, the number had declined to 259.
Then comes the really disturbing sentence, which says:
Financial restrictions under which the Agencies have agreed to work during the first part of 1954 will probably result in a further decline to 197 by next June.
That should give us food for thought. The fact is that if this programme is allowed to slip back a good deal of the sober optimism which, in the last year or two, has begun to reach the masses of the world, will go with it.
My hon. Friend asked for an increase in the contributions of the various contributing countries to the United Nations Fund. The fact is that in the last three financial periods the total of those contributions has remained somewhere between 20 million and 25 million dollars, and with rising costs, especially capital costs, it represents an aggregate yearly world decline in contributions, if not in conscience. I very strongly support my hon. Friend's plea that we should set an example by guaranteeing for the next five or 10 years a fairly substantial sum for disposal.
I should like to hear it announced in the House that, per head of the British population, there shall be applied, during


a foreseeable course of years, a certain amount of money. That would be a dramatic, intelligible and inspiring way of showing how we propose to come to the aid of the masses of the people who look to us for leadership and succour.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) for having raised this matter of United Nations technical assistance, and I am also very grateful to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchuroh (Mr. N. Nicolson) for the support he gave and the proposals which he made. I should like to comment on two points which heraised. A good deal of work is being done by the United Nations Association, and other organisations, in bringing to the knowledge of the public this most important work. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Holmes) has done a lot of that, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch has also done much. I hope that other hon. Members will join in. In the first year or 18 months there was some maladministration of some of the funds. It was very natural—indeed, it was almost inevitable—that that should be so, with a lot of Specialised Agencies coming in together and overlapping, but I think that has been cut out now.
I want to argue that our contribution to this work, by any standard, is most inadequately small, while our interest in its success is perhaps greater than that of any other nation in the world. It is barely four years since this work started, yet it is already the most romantic adventure story of the modern age. For the resources expended on it, it has given a greater practical social and economic return than any other project of the kind. It should be for every British financier and banker, for every manufacturer, exporter and importer and for every trade unionist and housewife the top priority in the policies which they ask the Government to pursue.
We can hold our place in the world, restore our balance of payments and raise our standard of living only if world supplies of food and raw materials are rapidly increased, and if the terms of trade

for our manufactured goods are improved by a fall in prices due to greater supplies. We can hope to find expanding markets for our exports only if the wealth of other nations, and especially of the underdeveloped countries, is increased, and if they can have a surplus over the bare necessities of life which will enable them to buy our manufacturd goods.
It was with that purpose that we set up the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, for which we in this country carry the whole financial burden. It was for that purpose that we shared in the Colombo Plan. I fought for that kind of thing in the debates on colonial affairs before the war. We are all very proud of what has been accomplished, but none of it, in my submission, has given us so big a return for what it has cost us as this U.N. project.
In his writings on the subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend has given an admirable and imaginative exposition of the work which has been accomplished. If the Under-Secretary of State wishes to understand the true meaning of this work and its true success, let him read the new book, "Men against the Jungle," which has been published by Mr. Ritchie Calder. He will find it most exciting reading and he will not forget it when he lays it down.
But this work has been hampered and restricted from 1952 onwards—from the second year—by the shortness and the uncertainty of the funds. When it started, everybody intended that by 1954 it should have risen to a target budget of something like 40 million or 50 million dollars. In fact, it has been kept down to 25 million dollars and, as my hon. Friend said, the funds are not pledged for more than one year ahead, so that it has been impossible for the board to make anything but short-term contracts with the experts whose services it secures. The result is that great numbers of projects have been interrupted or postponed or wholly rejected, and that is extremely dangerous, because of course we smash the enthusiasm of the Governments, who may not have found it easy to ask for help.
We have constantly urged the Government to increase our contribution and to pledge it for three years ahead. So far, they have done the opposite. At first, we paid 10·6 per cent. of the target. Last


year, it was cut to 5·6 per cent. Under the pressure of the House—I know the sympathy of the Foreign Office here, but I also know the power of the Treasury—it was raised again, and the Government last year did a little better, but on my calculation it is still only 7·2 per cent. of the target.
I think this is very bad business from the national point of view. When, in the summer, we urged that the sum should be increased, the Colonial Secretary replied that the nation had a deficit and added, "You cannot export a deficit." In the same speech, however, he told us he was going to give to schemes in the Colonies—in other words, he was going to export outside the United Kingdom—£3 million to increase the production of rice. Had he given the £3 million to the U.N. Technical Assistance Fund, the first part of the contribution would certainly have attracted American dollars in the proportion of 60 American dollars for every 40 that we put in. Much more than that: our delegate would have had an opportunity, with that offer in his hands, of raising the target to a more adequate total and he might perhaps have attracted £5 million of United States dollars and many other additional contributions, too. The work done in theColonies would quite certainly not have been less than it is by his method, while the total production of rice in the world would have been much more and the Commonwealth would greatly have benefited.
Our real purpose, and our real safety in years to come,lies in the increase of world production. I believe that expenditure through the U.N. Technical Assistance Programme is the most provident way of increasing that production, not only because 60 other nations contribute but because, up to date, it has helped our balance of payments. The money which we received last year in payments to British experts employed by United Nations, in scholarships to "fellows" who were sent for training in this country, brought us more foreign exchange than the whole of the contribution which we made. We were up on the transaction. I therefore submit that, on every ground of material interest and economic wisdom, we ought to support this work more generously then we have done.
I believe, however, that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will agree that

our economic interest is only one of the reasons for encouraging this work. Its success may be vital to our political endeavours to promote world peace. It is defence expenditure in the truest sense of the word. And as Mr. Ritchie Calder says, it is a work of Christian charity as well:
It is a struggle of 'men against the jungle,' not only against the jungle of tangled tropical forest, but against the jungle of mass diseases, of hunger, ignorance and misery, which smothers the innate resources of the peoples as surely as the riotous vegetation smothers the rich soil and the wealth of natural resources beneath it.
In that struggle it should be the historic destiny of our nation to give a bold and a courageous lead.

10.22 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): I hoped that as we had started on this Adjournment debate half an hour earlier I might have had a little more time in which to develop my reply to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland).
I must say that I regret that he, and to a lesser extent the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), have gone rather far in decrying the effort made by this country in trying to help other countries overseas. We have really nothing to be ashamed of in what this country has done since the war, or before it, in providing technical aid, in helping to train people, in finding equipment and so on. I think that if the debate is widely read and the speech of the hon. Baronet is looked at with care it will be felt by many people that he has greatly—I will not say grossly—exaggerated the shortcomings of this country.
He linked France with us when he opened his speech. I would point out that both this country and France had very considerable world-wide commitments outside the United Nations. I should not like it to go out from this House that we feel that France has not in fact made a major contribution to overseas development.
It is no good trying to write off what this country has done to help the Colonies and Commonwealth to finance some of their post-war or pre-war schemes. This country is finding enormous sums of money, up to £100 million a year, in financing these schemes in one way or


another. I should like if I have the time to give details of that later on and to put the United Nations technical aid in the setting of what the United Kingdom is doing to make good some of the wartime damage.
I do not want to make party points about this. A number of hon. Members on this side of the House after the war used to regret that we went too far in some ways in finding large sums of money when there was not the technical skill available to apply that money properly to the job of production. I think that I need say no more than merely to use the word "groundnuts" to exemplify what I mean. We have come now to discuss this in the setting of the rather narrow issue of the United Nations technical aid programme.
As I have said, we welcome this discussion. I assure the hon. Baronet that there is no disagreement between any Members of the Government on the importance of this programme and it is the wish of everyone on this side of the House and, I think, on the other side to support this programme within the financial capabilities of this country.
I realise that at this time of the year one is likely to hear a cry on behalf of one's particular interest for more money, but I should like to say that we on this side of the House are quite firmly in support of this programme; but it does often come back, as in most of these instances, to the question of how much money can be made available within the setting of our own commitments.
As I have said, it is not always finance which has been the difficulty since the war. It is very often the means to the end which matters most and the speed by which we can obtain what we want. Within that setting there is now a greater realisation that management and technicians, rather than immediate finance, are possibly the key to these problems.
This country has a great opportunity in the three ways in which technical aid can help, by sending experts, by accepting trainees, and by providing equipment. We are not the only country who can do that. Places like India and Pakistan have a tremendous contribution to make in the problem of water, whether hydroelectric water, or conservation for flood control or for irrigation. They have

helped with the provision of technicians and experts and ideas for developing what is going on.
In the five minutes remaining to me I will try to answer very briefly the points raised by the hon. Baronet. His first question asked why our percentage contribution to United Nations technical aid was substantially less than the assessed percentage contribution to the regular budget of the United Nations. The hon. Member knows how the percentage conbution to the United Nations budget is assessed. A committee set up under the original scheme assesses the percentage contribution of each member of the United Nations within a total which is voted annually by the General Assembly.
The particular fund for the United Nations technical aid is in principle, however, a voluntary fund to which each country makes a voluntary contribution, which is decided annually, with no obligation to contribute in the same proportions as to the United Nations budget. One year it might happen that we or some other Government might feel sufficiently strongly to make this voluntary contribution greater than the percentage contribution. I assure the hon. Baronet that there is no connection between the two. He can draw what percentage parallels he likes, but in practice there is no percentage connection between the two.
We in this country have not forgotten the United Nations, but we have also to think of the Colonies, even if the hon. Baronet cares to think them away, as he seemed to imply, and our commitments to the Colombo Plan. We are entitled to take these things into account in assessing what we can make as a voluntary gift, which is how it is laid down, towards the technical aid programme.
The second point to be taken up with the hon. Baronet concerns Sir Clifford Norton's speech. He was quite unnecessarily and offensively unfair to Sir Clifford Norton, who put the point of view very briefly that funds were not unlimited. The hon. Baronet seems to think that money is unlimited and that one has only to get up in this House and say, "Why not throw in everything we have got?" Sir Clifford Norton, very properly, in my opinion and that of the Government, put


the point that we had to cut our coat according to our cloth and that a steady and regular development of the technical aid programme within the resources of the finances of this country was necessary.
I hate to appear to make these party points, but we took over a fairly rocky situation in this country in 1951—I do not think anybody denies that now—and we had to cut our contributions in 1952; but they have been increased from year to year and in the calendar year 1954 we are contributing £650,000.
The hon. Member's third point concerned the Colombo Plan. He asked why we did not take the money away from the Colombo Plan, where it was not being spent, and use it in technical aid, where it was being spent. The answer, briefly, is that the money is being very well spent under the Colombo Plan, and possibly at some time—I have not

time now—I can give the hon. Baronet the details, because it is interesting how, after what he might call a slow start, the money is being spent. Some £464,000 has been spent to date and there are forward commitments of £943,000, totalling £1,407,000 in the first three years of the six and a half years which the Plan will run. The technical aid part of the Colombo Plan has now been made conterminous with the Colombo Plan itself. As far as one can see these things ahead, the rest of the money will be needed in the years ahead and we will have no difficulty in spending it.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.